Allowed

Baby E.N v. the Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology

Kerala HC8 Dec 2016WP(C)/25683/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by partners and a trading firm against the Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology directing prosecution proceedings. The Court directed the First Respondent to complete proceedings initiated under Ext.P3, considering Ext.P4 reply, and affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed the First Respondent to complete the proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P3, after considering Ext.P4 reply and affording the petitioners an opportunity for hearing, within four weeks from

Baby E.N Vs the Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/12TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 25683 of 2016 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. BABY E.N., MANAGING PARTNER, ESSEN TRADING COMPANY, PALISSERY, ANNAMANADA P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

2. GOPAKUMAR E.N., PARTNER, ESSEN TRADING COMPANY, PALISSERY, ANNAMANADA P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

3. M/S. ESSEN TRADING COMPANY, PALISSERY, ANNAMANADA P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY, NET CONTENT VERIFICATION UNIT, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2. THE CONTROLLER OF LEGAL METROLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL METROLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU.T.K

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

WP(C).No. 25683 of 2016 (I)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶21

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 26-08-2015 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶22

EXHIBIT P3 COPYOF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 12-5-2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶23

EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 3-6-2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

P.B. SURESH KUMAR,J.

¶30

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 25683 of 2016

¶31

- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2016

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

Petitioners 1 and 2 are partners of the third petitioner firm. The first respondent has issued Ext.P3 show cause notice to the third petitioner, directing them to show cause why they should not be prosecuted for violation of the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. According to the petitioners, though Ext.P4 reply was submitted by them to Ext.P3 show cause notice, further action pursuant to Ext.P3 show cause notice has so far not been taken. The limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the circumstances, is for a direction to the first respondent to complete the proceedings initiated as per Ext.P3, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.

¶34

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant the limited prayer sought by the petitioners.

¶35

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings initiated

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 25683 of 2016

¶37

-: 2 :-

¶38

pursuant to Ext.P3, after considering Ext.P4 reply and after affording the petitioners an opportunity for hearing, within four weeks from today.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE

¶41

DST

¶42

//True copy//

¶43

P.A. To Judge

Baby E.N v. the Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baby E.N v. the Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajimon K.A Vs C.a.Latha

Mathew Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Kansai Infra Structure and Developers Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

Kerala Karshaka Samrakshana Association Vs the District Collector, Palakkad

Kolothumthodi Safiya Vs the Secretary

Sivakumar Vs the Divisional Officer