Allahabad HC Sets Aside Legal Metrology Proceedings Against Pidilite for Ignoring Mandatory Inspection Rules
The Allahabad High Court quashed three orders against Pidilite Industries over M-Seal Phataphat weight violations, finding the Legal Metrology Department bypassed mandatory preconditions for retail inspection under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.
The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has allowed a writ petition filed by Pidilite Industries Ltd. and set aside three orders passed by the Legal Metrology Department, Jhansi, and the appellate authority under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. Justice Alok Mathur, sitting singly, held that the Senior Inspector of the Legal Metrology Department had inspected a retail shop without satisfying any of the mandatory preconditions prescribed under Rule 21 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, and that the appellate authority rejected the company's appeal without giving any reasons. The orders dated 14 August 2013, 18 January 2014, and 29 May 2014 were set aside entirely.
The Dispute Before the Court
Pidilite Industries manufactures M-Seal Phataphat, an epoxy compound sold in a single outer packet containing two inner packages — one of resin base and one of hardener — in equal quantities. A 25-gram pack, for instance, contains 12.5 grams of resin base and 12.5 grams of hardener. The product is available in weights of 12, 15, 25 grams and 1 kilogram.
On 6 August 2013, the Senior Inspector of the Legal Metrology Department, Jhansi, inspected a shop called M/s Abhilabh Iron Store, Sipri Bazar, Jhansi, in the presence of the proprietor, Shivpal Das. The inspection report stated that a 25-gram pack of M-Seal Phataphat, bearing a maximum retail price of Rs. 10 and a manufacturing date of April 2013, was found to have zero weight in its resin base component. The department treated this as a violation of Rule 18(2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 and the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, and initiated proceedings against Pidilite as the manufacturer.
A notice dated 14 August 2013 was issued to the company. Pidilite responded, denying the allegations and contending specifically that the Inspector had not followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 21 of the Rules, 2011, which governs inspections at the premises of a wholesale dealer or retail dealer. Notices were also received by various other officers of the company. The Legal Metrology Department, Jhansi, rejected the company's reply by order dated 18 January 2014 and stated that proceedings under the Act, 2009 would be initiated against the manufacturer rather than the retailer. Pidilite then filed a statutory appeal under Section 50(1)(d) of the Act, 2009, which was rejected by the appellate authority by order dated 29 May 2014.
Pidilite approached the High Court by way of the present writ petition, challenging all three orders.
The Legal Issue: Which Inspection Procedure Applied?
The central question was whether the inspection conducted at the Jhansi retail shop complied with the rules of procedure prescribed under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.
The Rules, 2011 draw a clear distinction between two types of inspections. Rule 19 governs inspection of packages at the premises of the manufacturer or packer. It requires the authorised Legal Metrology Officer to draw samples in the manner and number specified in the Fifth Schedule, carry out tests in accordance with the Sixth Schedule, record results in the Form set out in the Seventh Schedule, and obtain the signature of the manufacturer or packer or an authorised agent. The lot can be approved for sale only if the statistical average of net quantity meets or exceeds the declared quantity, no sample shows an error exceeding the maximum permissible error, and each package bears the required declarations.
Rule 21, on the other hand, governs inspection at the premises of a wholesale dealer or retail dealer. Under this rule, inspection may be initiated only in three circumstances: where there is a complaint received by the Director, Controller, or a Legal Metrology Officer; where that officer has reason to suspect tampering or pilferage of the commodity in the packages; or where a package or its label does not bear the declarations required under the Rules. These preconditions are prior to any inspection being carried out at a retail premises.
Pidilite argued that the Inspector had inspected a retail outlet, bringing Rule 21 squarely into play, yet had proceeded without satisfying any of its preconditions.
How the Bench Reasoned
Justice Alok Mathur examined the inspection report of 6 August 2013 and the impugned orders carefully. The court found that the inspection report recorded only that M-Seal Phataphat was found to be lesser in weight at the retail shop. None of the three preconditions under Rule 21 had been addressed in the report, in any of the impugned orders, or in the counter affidavit filed by the State.
The court observed that there was no complaint on record alleging that the product was underweight. No finding had been recorded that the packages had been tampered with or that there had been any pilferage or leakage. No finding was recorded that the declarations on the package were incorrect. The State's counter affidavit was equally silent on all these points.
Justice Mathur held that the preconditions in Rules 19 and 21 are mandatory in nature. They exist to protect manufacturers and retailers and to ensure that action is taken only against persons actually guilty of violating the Act. The court held that because the inspection was of a retail shop, Rule 21 applied, and its preconditions had to be fulfilled before any notice could issue to the manufacturer.
The court went further. It noted that even if the Inspector had observed some apparent deficiency in weight at the retail premises, the correct course was to bring that fact to the knowledge of the Director of the Legal Metrology Department. The Director, after due inquiry, would then proceed under the appropriate sub-rules of Rule 21 before seizing packages and initiating proceedings against the manufacturer.
The court also found procedural infirmity in the manner of the inspection itself. There was no material on record showing how the Officer had weighed the package or arrived at the conclusion that it was underweight. No independent witness had accompanied the Officer during the inspection; only the owner of the shop, Shivpal Das, was present. The statement of the shop owner had not been recorded by any authority before a finding was returned against the manufacturer. The court concluded that none of the statutory requirements of the Act, 2009 had been followed before the notice was issued to Pidilite.
Appellate Order Found Unreasoned
Justice Mathur separately addressed the appellate order dated 29 May 2014. On examining it, the court found that the appellate authority had recorded the grounds taken by Pidilite, then quoted the report of the Legal Metrology Officer obtained by the appellate authority, and finally declared that the grounds of appeal were “fond to be unacceptable” without any discussion.
The court held that an appellate authority is under a mandate to take into account the grounds raised by the appellant, discuss those grounds, and then accept or reject the appeal with adequate reasons in support of its decision. In this case, the appellate authority had given no reasons at all. Justice Mathur characterised the appellate order as “clearly illegal, arbitrary and without any application of mind.”
Order
The writ petition was allowed. The High Court set aside all three impugned orders: the notice dated 14 August 2013, the order of the Legal Metrology Department, Jhansi, dated 18 January 2014 rejecting Pidilite's reply, and the appellate order dated 29 May 2014 rejecting the statutory appeal. The matter was decided on 10 July 2026.