# General Manager, I.O.C.L., Bulk Oil Terminal, Chandauli & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 797
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-28
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 52674 of 2016
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Rajendra Kumar-Iv
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/general-manager-i-o-c-l-bulk-oil-terminal-chandauli-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50293
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - The Standard of Weights and
Measures Act, 1976 /the Standard of
Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act,
1985 / "the Act, 2009")-Section 24 - Rule
17(3) of the U.P. Rules, 2011- the
petitioners
got
their
storage
tanks
calibrated. The notices were issued to the
petitioners by the senior inspectors for
reason that the petitioners did not get
reverification even after expiry of the
validity
of
the
stamp-Therefore,
for
verification and stamping of weights or
798 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
measures, the fees as provided under Sub
Rule 1/sub Rule 2 of Rule 17 of the Rules
2011 was demanded-The storage tanks of
the petitioners have been alleged to be
merely receptional and except for storing
petroleum products, it is not used for any
other purpose-the respondents may levy
stamp verification/re-verification fee only
up to Rs.5,000/- for each storage tank
once in 60 months. No additional fee in
the form of penalty under Rule 17(3) can
be levied since it is not permitted by the
Principal Act. Therefore, the impugned
orders are arbitrary and illegal and
deserves to be quashed Section 16 of the
Act, 2009 provides for forfeiture of
unverified weight or measure. Section 33
provides for penalty to a maximum of
Rs.5,000/- for use of unverified weight or
measure.
Thus,
in
absence
of
a
substantive provision in the Act, 2009
providing for penalty of the nature and for
amount as provided in Rule 17(3), the
penal provision of Rule 17(3) of the U.P.
Rules, 2011 being beyond rule making
power, is ultra vires to the Principal Act,
i.e. the Act, 2009. That apart, Rule 25 of
the U.P. Rules, 2011 itself provides that
wherever the Rules are in conflict with the
provisions of the Act, the Act will prevail
upon the Rules.(Para 1 to 35)

The writ petitions are allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,977 of 54,365. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39977 for what follows._

5 All. General Manager, I.O.C.L., Bulk Oil Terminal, Chandauli & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 797
appellants by compulsion to cover its
export risk. The policy of insurance
covering the risk of the appellants was
issued by the first respondent after seeking
all required information and after receiving
huge sums of money as premium exceeding
Rs.16 lacs. On facts we have found that the
terms of the policy does not give room to
any ambiguity as to the risk covered by the
first respondent. We are also of the
considered opinion that the liability of the
first respondent under the policy arose
when the default of the exporter occurred
and
thereafter
when
Kazakhstan
Government failed to fulfil its guarantee.
There is no allegation that the contracts in
question were obtained either by fraud or
by misrepresentation. In such factual
situation, we are of the opinion, the facts of
this case do not and should not inhibit the
High Court or this Court from granting the
relief sought for by the petitioner."

33. Once the respondent/CORE has
lost
the
reference
made
on
similar
allegations of excessive pricing on the
same material on record before the CCI,
which are referred in the impugned orders,
and the appeal and review preferred by the
CORE before the NCLAT have also been
dismissed, the findings arrived by the CCI
has attained finality in the event of the
order
not
challenged before
Hon'ble
Supreme Court in terms of Section 53T of
Act, 2002, then the issue involved in the
present writ petition stood settled and
covered by the order passed by the CCI
dated 27.08.2018.

34. In the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, the writ petition deserves
to be allowed and the impugned orders
dated 12/13.9.2018 as well as demand
notice dated 26.9.2018 are liable to be set
aside.

35. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed and the impugned orders dated
12/13.9.2018 as well as demand notice
dated
26.9.2018
are
set
aside.
The
respondent authorities are directed to make
the entire payments to the petitioner
forthwith.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 797
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J.

Writ-C No. 52674 of 2016
With
Writ-C No. 33571 of 2018
And
Other Connected Cases

General
Manager,
I.O.C.L.,
Bulk
Oil
Terminal, Chandauli & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Prakash Padia, Sri Anand Tiwari, Sri
Devi Shanker Shukla, Sri Anil Sharma (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - The Standard of Weights and
Measures Act, 1976 /the Standard of
Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act,
1985 / "the Act, 2009")-Section 24 - Rule
17(3) of the U.P. Rules, 2011- the
petitioners
got
their
storage
tanks
calibrated. The notices were issued to the
petitioners by the senior inspectors for
reason that the petitioners did not get
reverification even after expiry of the
validity
of
the
stamp-Therefore,
for
verification and stamping of weights or
798 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
measures, the fees as provided under Sub
Rule 1/sub Rule 2 of Rule 17 of the Rules
2011 was demanded-The storage tanks of
the petitioners have been alleged to be
merely receptional and except for storing
petroleum products, it is not used for any
other purpose-the respondents may levy
stamp verification/re-verification fee only
up to Rs.5,000/- for each storage tank
once in 60 months. No additional fee in
the form of penalty under Rule 17(3) can
be levied since it is not permitted by the
Principal Act. Therefore, the impugned
orders are arbitrary and illegal and
deserves to be quashed Section 16 of the
Act, 2009 provides for forfeiture of
unverified weight or measure. Section 33
provides for penalty to a maximum of
Rs.5,000/- for use of unverified weight or
measure.
Thus,
in
absence
of
a
substantive provision in the Act, 2009
providing for penalty of the nature and for
amount as provided in Rule 17(3), the
penal provision of Rule 17(3) of the U.P.
Rules, 2011 being beyond rule making
power, is ultra vires to the Principal Act,
i.e. the Act, 2009. That apart, Rule 25 of
the U.P. Rules, 2011 itself provides that
wherever the Rules are in conflict with the
provisions of the Act, the Act will prevail
upon the Rules.(Para 1 to 35)

The writ petitions are allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Commr. Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras
Vs Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur
Mutt.(1954) SCR 1005 : AIR 1954 SC 282

2. St. of UK Vs Kumaon Stone Crusher (2018)
14 SCC 537

3. Khemka & Co. (Agencies) (P.) Ltd. Vs St. of
Mah. (1975) 2 SCC 22

4. St. of U.P. Vs Sitapur Packing Wood Suppliers
(2002) 4 SCC 566

5.
Mahachandra
Prasad
Singh
(Dr.)
Vs
Chairmnan, Bih. Legislative Council (2004) 8
SCC 747
6. V.V.S. Sugars Vs St. of A.P. (1999) 4 SCC 192
7. Indian Carbon Ltd. Vs St. of Assam, (1997) 6
SCC 479

8. J.K. Synthetic Ltd. Vs C.T.O.(1994) 4 SCC 276

9. M/s Shree Steel Rolling Mills Vs Commr. of
Central Excise & anr. (2016) 3 SCC 643

10. IOC Ltd. Vs St. of U.P. (2019) 16 SCC 482

11. Veena Kumari Tandon Vs Neelam Bhalla &
ors. (2007) 12 SCC 764

12.
Vimal
Chandra
Banerjee
Vs
St.
of
M.P.(1970) 2 SCC 467

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Sharma,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Devi Shanker Shukla, Sri Pramod Kumar
Rai, Sri Anand Tiwari, Sri Rakesh Kumar
and Sri Komal Mehrotra, learned Counsel
for the petitioners, and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi,
learned
Additional
Advocate
General
assisted by Sri Pankaj Rai, B.B. Pandey and
Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. With the consent of learned
counsels for the parties, the WRIT - C No. -
52674 of 2016 is treated as leading writ
petition. However, relief sought in each of
the writ petitions in this bunch of cases are
briefly noted below.

WRIT - C No. - 33571 of 2018

3. In this writ petition, the notices
dated 25.09.2018 and 29.09.2018 issued
by the Senior Inspector, Legal Metrology
Meerut, requiring the petitioner to get
verification of storage tanks and flow
meters, has been challenged.

WRIT - C No. - 52674 of 2016
5 All. General Manager, I.O.C.L., Bulk Oil Terminal, Chandauli & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 799

4. In leading Writ - C No. - 52674 of
2016, the petitioners have prayed to quash
the order dated 14.10.2013 demanding fee
@ Rs.20,000/- per storage tank, stamping
fee @ Rs.1,50,000/- per storage tank and
late fees @ Rs.1,30,000/- per storage tank.
By the impugned notice dated 16.12.2013,
the Senior Inspector, Legal Metrology,
Mughalsarai,
Chandauli
required
the
petitioners to deposit the arrears for certain
period alongwith late fees. The petitioners
have also prayed to quash the appellate
order dated 23.08.2016, passed by the
Controller of Legal Metrology Department,
U.P., Lucknow dated 23.08.2016 whereby
the appeal of the petitioners have been
dismissed.
Apart
from
above,
the
petitioners have also challenged the validity
of Rule 17(3) of Uttar Pradesh Legal
Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011.
(hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Rules,
2011)

Writ - C Nos. -54682 of 2016, 54685
of 2016, 54687 of 2016, 57179 of 2016,
57180 of 2016, 57203 of 2016, 57208 of
2016, 57210 of 2016, 57766 of 2016, and
Writ - C 61624 of 2016

5. In the above noted writ petitions
the relief prayed is similar to the relief as
prayed in Writ C No.52674 of 2016.

WRIT - C No. - 32799 of 2018

6. In Writ C 32799 of 2018, Seizure
Memo date 24.09.2018 and notices dated
03.08.2018 and 15.09.2018 have been
challenged apart from challenging the
validity of the aforesaid Rules 17(3).

7. The relief sought in Writ C
No.52674 of 2016 is reproduced below:

"(a) a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the order
dated 23.8.2016 passed by the Controller,
Legal
Metrology
Department,
U.P,
Lucknow, respondent no. 2 (Annexure-29 to
the writ petition);

(b) a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the
notices/orders dated 14.10.13 and 16.12.13
issued by respondent no.4 (Annexure-17 &
20 to the writ petition)

(c) a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents not to insist the petitioners-
corporation for calibration of vertical
storage tanks installed in the depot at
Mughalsarai;

(d) a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents not to charge any penalty for
non-calibration of storage tanks situated at
the depot of the corporation;

(e) a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus declaring the
provisions or additional fees as null, void,
inoperative
and
unconstitutional
as
provided under Rule 17(3) of Uttar
Pradesh Legal Metrology (Enforcement),
Rules, 2011;

(f) any other writ, order or
direction as this Hon'ble court may deem fit
and proper in the Circumstances of the
case; and

(g) award cost of the petition to
be paid to the petitioners."

FACTS:-

8. Since factual and legal position in
this batch of writ petitions are similar,
therefore, we proceed to note the facts of
leading writ petition i.e. Writ C No.52674
of 2016, as under :
800 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(a) The petitioners have storage
tanks to store their petroleum products
received from various refineries in the
country by railway tank wagons/pipe lines.
According the petitioners, the railway tank
wagons through which the products are
received in the tank at the depot/terminal
are duly calibrated by the competent
authority and sales are executed by the
corporation
for
supply
of
petroleum
products through different retail outlets as
well as the bulk consumers by tank
mounted trucks (tankers) which are duly
calibrated by the competent authorities of
Weights and Measures departments. The
storage tanks of the petitioners have
been alleged to be merely receptional
and
except
for
storing
petroleum
products, it is not used for any other
purpose i.e. neither for transaction nor for
any measurement assistance. Therefore,
calibration as defined in Section 2(a) of the
Standard of Weights and Measures Act,
1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act,
1976") is not required. It has been alleged
in the writ petition that these storage tanks
are just receptical means for storage and are
not under any provision of law required to
be calibrated. Petroleum products received
in the tanks are also sold through calibrated
means. However, since various orders were
passed
by
Senior
Inspectors,
legal
metrology of various districts, therefore,
the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.34383
of 1996 (IOCL Vs. State of U.P. and
others)
challenging
the
orders
for
compulsory calibration of storage tanks and
to deposit the requisite fee.

(b) Initially interim orders were
granted by a Division Bench of this Court
on 31.10.1996 but ultimately the aforesaid
writ petition was dismissed by judgment
and order dated 12.04.2007 holding the
Government Order dated 10.04.1996 to
be valid. Against the aforesaid judgment
and order, a SLP was preferred by the
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. before Hon'ble
the Supreme Court being SLP(Civil)
No.17393 of 2007.

(c) It appears that large number of
writ petitions in various High Courts were
filed
by
the
petitioners
herein.
Subsequently
the
petitioners
filed
a
Transfer Petition before Hon'ble Supreme
Court being leading Transfer Petition
(Civil) No.874 of 2004 (Indian Oil
Corporation and another Vs. Inspector
Legal Metrology and another). By order
dated 10.03.2006, Hon'ble Supreme Court
exercising the powers under Article 139
A(1)
of
the
Constitution
of
India,
transferred all the writ petitions pending in
High Courts to Supreme Court for hearing.
The aforesaid SLP (Civil) No.17393 of
2007 was also clubbed with the aforesaid
Transfer Petitions. Ultimately, all the
Transfer Petitions were dismissed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court (leading Transfer
Case (Civil) No.99 of 2006) by order dated
26.02.2013.

(d) Thus, the challenge of the
petitioners
to
the
action
of
the
respondents for bringing the storage
tanks within the purview of the Act 1976,
ultimately failed. The aforesaid order of
Hon'ble Supreme Court has attained
finality.

(e)
After
dismissal
of
the
aforesaid cases by Hon'ble Supreme Court,
a letter was written to the Legal Metrology
Department, Bihar, dated 21.03.2013 for
calibration of storage tank situated in
depots. The calibration was made by the
Legal
Metrology
Inspector
and
the
calibration fees @ of Rs.5000/- per tank per
year was demanded from January 1992 to
April 2013. Consequently, the petitioners
filed I. As. before Hon'ble Supreme Court
challenging the demand notices issued by
the authorities of the State of Bihar. All the
5 All. General Manager, I.O.C.L., Bulk Oil Terminal, Chandauli & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 801
I.As.
were
disposed
of
by
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
by
order
dated
30.08.2013 as under :

"If the applicant-petitioner is
aggrieved by the notice demanding fees
and penalties for stamping 11 tanks
amounting to Rs. 24.20 lakhs, then we feel
that this has given rise to a fresh cause of
action for which the petitioner may pursue
appropriate legal remedy available to it in
law. We, accordingly, observe that if the
petitioner pursues remedy for redressal of
grievance concerning above demand in
appropriate forum, the same shall be
considered in accordance with law. In that
event, the orders passed by this Court shall
have no bearing for the consideration of
the matter.

I.As.
stand
disposed
of
accordingly."

(f)
Thus,
the
Indian
Oil
Corporation Ltd. was relegated to avail
statutory remedy against the orders
creating demand of fees and late fees.

(g) The impugned notices were
issued by the Office of the Senior
Inspector, Legal Metrology Department of
concerned districts and thereafter demands
were created. Aggrieved, the petitioner
filed Writ C No.8356 of 2014 (Deputy
General Manager I.O.C. Ltd. & another Vs.
State Of U.P. & 3 Others) which was
dismissed on the ground of alternative
remedy giving liberty to the petitioners to
approach the appropriate appellate forum in
terms of the provisions of Legal Metrology
(General) Act, 2009 read with the Rules,
2011. The petitioners filed Appeal No.6
of 2014 before the Controller of Legal
Metrology Department, Uttar Pradesh,
Lucknow, which was dismissed by order
dated 25.09.2014.

(h) Aggrieved with the aforesaid
appellate order, the petitioners filed Writ -
C No.50603 of 2014 which was allowed by
this Court by judgment and order dated
03.12.2015 providing as under :

"Therefore, this writ petition is
allowed to the extent and in the manner
indicated above. The impugned order dated
14.08.2014 is set aside and Appeal No.6 of
2014 is restored for reconsideration of the
Appellate Authority, strictly in accordance
with law. The parties through their
respective counsel shall stand at notice to
appear before the Appellate Authority in
the first place on 08.01.2016.

Having
regard
to
the
circumstances of the case, it is also
provided in the interest of justice that until
final decision by the Appellate Authority in
Appeal No.6 of 2014, the interim order
passed by this Court on 25.09.2014 shall
remain in operation.It would, of course, be
required of the Appellate Authority to take
final decision in the appeal at the earliest,
preferably within two months from the date
of appearance of parties."

(i) Pursuant to the aforequoted
judgment and order of this Court, the
aforesaid appeal No.6 of 2014 was again
decided by order dated 23.08.2016 and the
appeal was dismissed holding that the
petitioners are liable to pay the fees for
calibration and also the late fees.

(j) Aggrieved with the aforesaid
appellate order/demand notices, the
petitioners have filed the present writ
petition challenging the validity of Rules
17(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Legal
Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011
(hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Rules,
2011).

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners
states that the Writ C No.33571 of 2018 has
been filed merely against notices and the
petitioners submit reply to it. In view of
this statement, the Writ C No.33571 of
2018 deserves to be dismissed.
802 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. In rest of the writ petitions only
the question of legality of the impugned
demand notices/appellate orders and the
validity of Rule 17(3) of the Rules 2011
remains to be tested.

11. The Standard of Weights and
Measures Act, 1976 and the Standard of
Weights and Measures (Enforcement)
Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act, 1985") were repealed by Section 57 of
the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act, 2009") with a
saving clause. The Act 2009 came into
force w.e.f. 1.4.2011.

12. From the impugned appellate
order dated 23.08.2016 it is evident that
earlier the petitioners got their storage
tanks calibrated. The notices were issued to
the petitioners by the senior inspectors for
reason that the petitioners did not get
reverification even after expiry of the
validity of the stamp. Therefore, for
verification and stamping of weights or
measures, the fees as provided under
Sub Rule 1/sub Rule 2 of Rule 17 of the
Rules 2011 was demanded.

13. The appellate authority came to
the conclusion that since calibration was
not done within the prescribed time,
therefore, the petitioners are liable to
pay verification fees as well as late fees.

14. Hence, the petitioners have filed
the present writ petitions.

15. In our order dated 19.011.2022
passed in the leading Writ C No.52674 of
2016 with the consent of the learned
counsels for the parties, we have framed
the following questions for determination
in the present writ petitions except in WritC No.33571 of 2018, which is dismissed in
view of the statement of learned counsel for
the petitioners as noted in Paragraph-9 of
the aforesaid order dated 19.11.2022. The
questions as framed in the order dated
19.11.2022; are as under:

(i) Whether Rule 17(3) of the
Rules 2011 is a valid piece of legislation ?

(ii) Whether the demand of fees,
late fees or additional fees under the The
Standard of Weights and Measures Act,
1976 / The Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read
with the Uttar Pradesh Legal Metrology
(Enforcement) Rules 2011, is a commercial
dispute covered by office memorandum
F.No.4(1)/2013-DPE(GM)/FTS-1835,
Government of India Ministry of Heavy
Industries
&
Public
Enterprises,
Department of Public Enterprises dated
22.05.2018 and Consequently the dispute
of payment of late fees by the petitioners
deserves to be resolved through permanent
machinery
of
Arbitration
mechanism
(P.M.A. mechanism) ?

(iii) Whether the petitioners are
liable to pay fees and late fees ?

Submissions:-

16. Sri Anil Kumar Sharma,
learned
Senior
Advocate
for
the
petitioners submits as under:-

(i) Fee for verification under the
Act, 2009 and Rules framed thereunder
cannot be
charged over
and
above
Rs.5,000/- for the specified period i.e., 60
months.

(ii) Since there is no provisions
under the Act, 2009 for levy of additional
fee or late fee, therefore, Rules 17(3) of the
U.P. Rules, 2011 is ultra vires being
beyond the power conferred under the
Principal Act.
5 All. General Manager, I.O.C.L., Bulk Oil Terminal, Chandauli & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 803

(iii) No fee can be recovered from
the petitioners for the period prior to the
coming into force of the Act, 2009
inasmuch as all proceedings under the
repealed Act, 1976 have lapsed.

(iv)
Fee
for
verification
or
reverification for the period covered by the
Act, 1985 and the U.P. Rules, 1990 cannot
be charged.

17. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned
Additional Advocate General for the
State has carried us to various provisions
of the Act, 1976, the Rules, 1985, the Act,
1985, the Rules, 1990, the Act, 2009, the
General Rules, 2011, the Model Draft
Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules,
2010 and the U.P. Rules, 2011. He
specifically drawn our attention to the
provisions of Section 52 and 53 of the Act,
2009 and the General Rules, 2011 and the
U.P. Rules, 2011 and submits as under:

(i) There is no rider in the
Principal Act with regard to the quantum of
fee and the matter has been left for
subordinate legislation. The scale of fee has
been provided by subordinate legislation.
The State Government in exercise of
those powers, framed the U.P. Rules,
2011 adopting the scale of fee as
prescribed under the General Rules,
2011 and the Model Rules for the State
framed by the Central Government. It
adopted the additional fee prescribed under
the power conferred under the Act, 2009
which is inconsequence to the Model Rules
framed by the Central Government i.e.
Model Rules, 2010. Thus the Rules 17(3)
of the Rules, 1990 is well within the
legislative powers, conferred upon the State
Government.

(ii) There is saving clause under
the Act, 2011, and therefore, all the
proceedings under the Act, 1976 stands
saved, therefore, petitioners cannot deny
the payment of verification fee or the
additional fee.

(iii) The notices issued to the
petitioners levying only Rs.5,000/- per
each five years, is in accordance with
provisions of the Central Rules 2011 and
the U.P. Rules, 2011. The late fee was also
re-framed, and late fee has been demanded
in terms of the Model Rules, 2010 as
adopted by the State Government being
U.P. Rules, 2011, therefore, the petitioners
are liable to pay the fee and the additional
fee. The writ petition is frivolous and the
impugned notices and orders are valid.
Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be
dismissed.

Discussion and Findings:-

18. Before we proceed to examine
rival submissions of learned counsels for
the parties, it would be appropriate to
reproduce the Relevant Provisions having
bearing on the controversy involved in the
present writ petitions, as under:

Relevant Provisions:-

(a) The Standards of Weights
and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985

"24. (1) ..........

(2) Every weight or measure
referred to in sub-section (1) shall be reverified at such periodical intervals as
may be prescribed.

Explanation-- For the removal of
doubts it is hereby declared that no
periodical
re-verification
shall
be
necessary in relation to any weight or
measure which is used exclusively for
domestic purposes.

70. Levy of fees.- The State
Government may, by rules made under
section 72, levy such fees, not exceeding--

(a) ....
804 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(b) ....

(c) .....

(d) five thousand rupees, on a
graded scale, for the verification of any
weight or measure, having regard to the
time and labour which may be involved in
making such verification,

72. (1) The State Government
may, by notification and after consultation
with the Central Government, make rules
to carry out the provisions of this Act.

(2) In particular, and without
prejudice to the generality of the foregoing
power, such rules may provide for all or
any of the following matters, namely :-

............................................

(m) the period within which
weights or measures shall be verified or
re-verified as required by sub-section (2) of
section 24;

............................................

(u) the amount of fees which may
be levied and collected for each of the
matters specified in section 70;

(3) In making any rule under this
section, the State Government may provide
that a breach thereof shall be punishable
with fine which may extend to one thousand
rupees."

(b)
The
Uttar
Pradesh
Standards of Weights and Measures
(Enforcement) Rules, 1990 ( hereinafter
referred to as "the U.P. Rules, 1990")

"14. Periodical interval for the
verification of weights or measures.- (1)
Every weight or measure including bullion,
carat,
weights,
Beam
scale,
counter
machine and liquid capacity measures
(dipping measures, pouring measures and
conical measures) used or intended to be
used in any commercial transaction shall
be verified or re-verified and stamped at
lease once in a period of 24 months:

Provided that the fee payable for
verification and stamping of above weights
and measures shall be charged at the rate
prescribed in schedule XII to be calculated
on year basis per year:

Provided further that weights or
measures used for industrial production or
protection shall be verified or re-verified
and stamped at lease once in a year:

Provided also that storage tanks
including vats shall be verified or reverified and calibrated or re-calibrated and
stamped at lease once in a period of five
years.

(2)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in sub-rule (1) every weight or
measure which has been verified and
stamped in situ shall, if it is dismantled and
re-installed before the date on which the
verification falls due be duly re-verified
and stamped on payment of the prescribed
fee, before being put into use.

(3)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in sub-rule(1) every weight or
measure which has been verified and
stamped shall if it is repaired before the
date on which the verification falls due to
be duly re-verified and stamped on
payment of the prescribed fee, before being
put into use.

17. Fee for verification and
stamping.-(1) Fees payable for verification
and stamping of weight or measure at the
office or camp office of the Inspector shall
be as specified in Schedule XII.

(2) If, at the request of the user of
weight or measure, verification is done at
any premises other than the office or
camp office of the Inspector, an additional
fee shall be charged at half the rates
specified in the Schedule XII and the user
of the weight or measure shall pay the
expenses incurred by the Inspector for
visiting the premises including the cost of
transporting and handling the Working
Standard and other equipment subject to a
minimum of rupees ten:
5 All. General Manager, I.O.C.L., Bulk Oil Terminal, Chandauli & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 805

Provided that no additional fee
shall be charged for verification and
stamping in situ, of,

(i)
vehicle
tanks
dispensing
pumps, weigh-bridges, dormant platform
machines and such other weight or
measure which cannot, and should not be
moved from its location;

(ii) Weight or measures in the
premises of manufacturer or stockist of
such weight or measure.

(3) If a weight or measure is
presented
to
the
Inspector
for
reverification after expiry of the validity of
the stamp, an additional fee at half the
rates specified in Schedule XII shall be
payable for every quarter of the year or
part thereof.

(4) No fee shall be payable for restamping any weight or measure held in
stock with manufacturer or dealer within
the period specified in Rule 14 from the
date on which it was last stamped, provided
that the original stamp was not obliterated
under Section (3) of Section 28 of the Act.

(5) A weight or measure which on
verification/inspection is found to be
incorrect shall be returned to the person
concerned for adjustment informing him, in
a proforma specified by the Controller of
the defects found in the weight or measure,
and calling upon him to remove the defects
within a period not exceeding seven days.
When the necessary adjustment has been
carried out, such weight or measure shall
be verified on payment of the fees specified
in Schedule XII and if found correct shall
be stamped."

24. Penalty for contravention of
rules- Whoever contravenes any provision
of these rule for the contravention of which
no
punishment
has
been
separately
provided in the Act, shall be punished with
fine which may extend to one thousand
rupees.
SCHEDULE XII (Relevant clause-2 is
reproduced)
[See Rule 17(1)]

1............

2. Capacity Measure (including
storage tank, vehicle tanks, Dispensing
Measures and Peg Measures)-

Capacity
Fee per piece
50 litres and above
Rs.10.00 for the
first 100 litres or
part thereof plus
Rs.3.00 for every
additional 100
Litres or part
thereof subject to
a maximum of
Rs.5,000
201
4.00
101
4.00
51
2.00
21
2.00
11
2.00
500 ml
1.00
200 ml
1.00
100 ml
1.00
50 ml
1.00
20 ml
1.00
10 ml
1.00
5 ml
1.00
2 ml
1.00
1 ml
1.00
18.5 ml
4.00
60 ml
1.00
30 ml
1.00

(c) The Legal Metrology Act,
2009 (This Act repealed the Act, 1985)

Section 2 (v) "verification", with
its grammatical variations and cognate
expressions, includes, in relation to any
weight
or
measure,
the
process
of
comparing, checking, testing or adjusting
such weight or measure with a view to
ensuring that such weight or measure
806 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conforms to the standards established by or
under this Act and also includes reverification and calibration;

Section 2(w) "weight or measure"
means a weight or measure specified by or
under this Act and includes a weighing or
measuring instrument.

Section
16:
Forfeiture.-
(1)
Every non-standard or unverified weight or
measure, and every package made in
contravention of section 18, used in the
course of, or in relation to, any trade and
commerce and seized under section 15,
shall be liable to be forfeited to the State
Government:

Provided that such unverified
weight or measure shall not be forfeited to
the State Government if the person from
whom such weight or measure was seized
gets the same verified and stamped within
such time as may be prescribed.

(2) Every weight, measure or
other goods seized under section 15 but not
forfeited under sub-section (1), shall be
disposed of by such authority and in such
manner as may be prescribed.

Section 24. Verification and
stamping of weight or measure.--(1) Every
person having any weight or measure in his
possession,
custody
or
control
in
circumstances indicating that such weight
or measure is being, or is intended or is
likely to be, used by him in any transaction
or for protection, shall, before putting
such weight or measure into such use,
have such weight or measure verified at
such place and during such hours as the
Controller may, by general or special
order, specify in this behalf, on payment of
such fees as may be prescribed.

(2) The Central Government may
prescribe the kinds of weights and
measures for which the verification is to be
done through the Government approved
Test Centre.

(3) The Government approved
Test Centre shall be notified by the Central
Government or the State Government, as
the case may be, in such manner, on such
terms and conditions and on payment of
such fee as may be prescribed.

(4) The Government approved
Test Centre shall appoint or engage
persons having such qualifications and
experience and collect such fee on such
terms and conditions for the verification of
weights and measures specified under subsection (2) as may be prescribed.
CHAPTER V (SECTIONS 25 TO 57)

Section 33: Penalty for use of
unverified weight or measure.-Whoever,
sells, distributes, delivers or otherwise
transfers or uses any unverified weight or
measure shall be punished with fine
which shall not be less than two thousand
rupees but which may extend to ten
thousand rupees and, for the second or
subsequent offence, with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to one year and
also with fine.

Section 52: Power of the Central
Government to make rules.

(1) ....

(2) In particular, and without
prejudice to the generality of the foregoing
power, such rules may provide for all or
any of the following matters, namely:--

(a)..

(b)...

(c)
physical
characteristics,
configuration,
constructional
details,
materials,
equipment,
performance,
tolerances,
period
of
re-verification,
methods or procedures of tests under subsection (4) of section 7;

Section 53. Power of State
Government to make rules.--(1) The State
Government may, by notification, and
after
consultation
with
the
Central
5 All. General Manager, I.O.C.L., Bulk Oil Terminal, Chandauli & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 807
Government, make rules to carry out the
provisions of this Act.

(2) In particular and without
prejudice
to
the
generality
of
the
foregoing power, such rules may provide
for all or any of the following matters,
namely:--

(a) the time within which the
weight or measure may be got verified
under proviso to sub-section (1) of section
16;

(b) registers and records to be
maintained by persons referred to under
sub-section (1) of section 17;

(c) the form, manner, conditions,
period, area of jurisdiction and fees for
issuance of licence under sub-section (2) of
section 23;

(d) fee for verification and
stamping of any weight or measure under
sub-section (1) of section 24;

(e)
manner
of
notifying
Government approved Test Centre, terms
and conditions and fee to be paid under
sub-section (3) of section 24;

(f)
fee
for
compounding
of
offences under sub-section (1) of section
48;

(3) In making any rule under this
section, the State Government may provide
that a breach thereof shall be punishable
with fine which may extend to five
thousand rupees.

(4) The power to make rules
under this section shall be subject to the
condition of the rules being made after
previous publication in Official Gazette.

(5) Every rule made under this
section shall, as soon as may be after it is
made, be laid before each House of State
Legislature, where there are two Houses
and where there is one House of State
Legislature, before that House.

Section
57.
Repeal
of
the
Standards of Weights and Measures Act,
1976 and Standards of Weights and
Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985.--(1)
The Standards of Weights and Measures
Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of
Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act,
1985 (54 of 1985), is hereby repealed.

(2) Without prejudice to the
provisions contained in the General
Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), with
respect to repeals, any notification, rule or
order made under the Standards of
Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of
1976) and the Standards of Weights and
Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 (54 of
1985),
shall,
if
in
force,
at
the
commencement of this Act, continue to be
in force and have effect as if it was made
under the corresponding provision of this
Act.

(3) Notwithstanding such repeal,
any appointment, notification, rule, order,
registration, licence, certificate, notice,
decision,
approval,
authorisation
or
consent made, issued or given under such
law shall, if in force at the commencement
of this Act, continue to be in force and have
effect as if it were made, issued or given
under the corresponding provisions of this
Act.

(d)
The
Legal
Metrology
(General)
Rules,
2011
(
hereinafter
referred to as "the General Rules, 2011")
(framed by Central Government in exercise
of powers under Section 52(2)(c), (f), (h),(i)
and (s) of the Act, 2009)

Rule 25. Scale of fee.-- The scale
of fees to be collected for the service
specified
in
column
(2) of
Twelfth
Schedule shall be at the rate specified in
column 3 of the said Schedule.

Rule 27. Periodical verification
of weights or measures.- (1) Every weight
or measure used or intended to be used in
any transaction or for protection of living
beings or things in clause (k) of Section 2
808 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
shall be verified and stamped by the Legal
Metrology Officer in the State in which
such weight or measure is put to use and
shall be re-verified and stamped at
periodical Intervals.

(2) The re-verification shall be
carried out on the completion of a period
of,-

(a) twenty four months for all
weights,
capacity
measures,
length
measures, tape, beam scale and counter
machine,

(b) sixty months for storage
tanks, and

(c) twelve months for all weight
or measure including tank lorry other than
that mentioned In clauses (a) & (b).

(3)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in sub-rule (2) every weight or
measure which has been verified and
stamped in situ shall, if it is dismantled and
re-installed before the date on which the
verification falls due shall be duly reverified and stamped, before being put into
use.

(4)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in sub-rule (1) every weight or
measure which has been verified and
stamped shall, if it is repaired before the
date on which the verification falls due
shall be duly re-verified and stamped
before being put into use.

(e) The Uttar Pradesh Legal
Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011
(framed by State Government in exercise of
powers under Section 53(1) of the Act,
2009)

Rule 14. Periodical interval for
the verification of weights or measures
shall be as specified in Legal Metrology
(General) Rules, 2011.

Rule 17. Fee for verification.-(1)
Fees
payable
for
verification
and
stamping of weight or measure at the
office or camp office of the Legal
Metrology Officer shall be as specified in
Schedule IX.

(2) If, at the request of the user of
weight or measure, verification is done at
any premises other than the office or
camp office of the Legal Metrology
Officer, an additional fee shall be charged
at half the rate specified in the Schedule
IX and the user of the weight or measure
shall pay the expenses incurred by the
Legal Metrology Officer for visiting the
premises including the cost of transporting
and handling the Working Standard and
other equipment subject to a minimum of
Rupees One hundred:

Provided that no additional fee
shall be charged for verification and
stamping, in situ, of,

(i) Vehicle tanks for petroleum
products and other liquids, Meter for
Liquids other than water (Fuel Dispenser,
Liquid Petroleum Gas, Milk Dispensers),
Compressed Natural Gas Dispensers, Nonautomatic
Weighing
Instruments
like
weighbridges, platform machines, crane
scale,
Automatic
Gravimetric
Filling
Instruments, Automatic Rail-weighbridge,
Discontinuous
Totalizing
Automatic
Weighing Instruments, and such other
weight or measure which cannot, and
should not be moved from its location;

(ii) Weight or measure in the
premises of manufacturer or dealer of
such weight or measure.

(3) If a weight or measure is
presented to the Legal Metrology Officer
for re-verification after expiry of the
validity of the stamp, an additional fee at
half the rate specified in Schedule IX shall
be payable for every quarter of the year or
part thereof.

(4) No fee shall be payable for restamping any weight or measure held in
stock with manufacturer or dealer within
the period specified in Rule 14 from the
5 All. General Manager, I.O.C.L., Bulk Oil Terminal, Chandauli & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 809
date on which it was last stamped, provided
that the original stamp was not obliterated.

(5) A weight or measure which on
verification/inspection is found to be
incorrect shall be returned to the person
concerned for adjustment informing him, in
a pro forma specified by the Controller, of
the defects found in the weight or measure,
and calling upon him to remove the defects
within a period not exceeding seven days.
When the necessary adjustment has been
carried out, such weight or measure shall
be verified on payment of the fees specified
in Schedule IX and if found correct shall
be stamped."

Rule 25: Whoever contraventions
any provision of these rules, for the
contraventions of which no punishment has
been separately provided in the Act, shall
be punished with fine, which may extend
to five thousand rupees. Wherever the
rules are in conflict with provisions of the
Act, the Act will prevail upon the rules.

SCHEDULE IX (only relevant portion is
reproduced)
[See Rule 17(1)]

1............

2. Capacity Measures:

Denomination
Fee per piece
(Rs.)
(1)
(2)
100 litres and above
Rs.50 for the Ist
100 litres plus
Rs.7 for every
additional 100
litre or part
thereof subject to
a maximum of
Rs.5000
501
50.00
201
20.00
101
20.00
51
10.00
21
10.00
11
10.00
500 ml
10.00
200 ml
10.00
100 ml
10.00
50 ml
10.00
20 ml
10.00
10 ml
10.00
5 ml
10.00
2 ml
10.00
1 ml
10.00

Liability under the Act, 1985 AND
The U.P. Rules, 1990:-

19. Section 24 (2) of the Act, 1985
provides that every weight or measure
referred to in sub Section (1) shall be reverified at such periodical intervals as may
be prescribed. Third Proviso to Rule 14(1)
of the U.P.