Karnataka Weights and Measures Licence Holders Association vs Controller of Legal Metrology

Shivashankar Bhat, J.—The petitioner is an Association of licence holders of repairers of weights/measures. The Association is aggrieved by the enforcement of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules 1988. The entire Rule 17 is quoted below:

Fee for verification and stamping :-

(1) Fees payable for verification and stamping of weights or measures at the office or camp office 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 schedule XII and the user of the weight or measure shall also pay the expenses incurred by the Inspector for visiting the premises including the cost of transporting the working standard and other equipment subject to a minimum of rupees ten."

(underlining is done here)

According to the petitioner the authorities have -been demanding exorbitant amounts as expenses under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 17 and they were refusing to issue the receipt for the payments made in that regard by the members of the petitioner-Association. Thus the grievance is confined to the last portion of Rule 17(2) pertaining to the expenses incurred by the Inspectors for visiting the premises including the cost of transporting the working standard and other equipments.

The authorities are entitled to collect the expenses by virtue of Rule 17(2). The right is statutory. They cannot deny the issuance of receipts to the persons from whom they collect the payment towards expenses. The payment made towards the expenses by the members of the petitioner-Association will be a business expenditure incurred by them and they may be entitled to other benefits such as claim for deduction under Income Tax Act, etc. Even otherwise the authorities cannot just pocket the amount in the guise of collecting the same under Rule 17(2). Consequently, I direct the authorities/respondents to issue proper receipts for the payment received by them towards the expenses, etc., referred in Rule 17(2). Mr. Mandappa, learned Counsel for the petitioner, asserted that the authorities were demanding exorbitant sums as payments under Rule 17(2). Even for transporting the equipments they have been demanding amounts disproportionately high than the one actually incurred by the authorities.

It should be noted that the power given under Rule 17(2) is a power to reimburse the expenses incurred. There is sufficient guidance in the very Rule. The amount collected cannot exceed the actual expenses that would be incurred by the Inspector for visiting the premises or cost of transporting the equipments referred therein. Any excess demand will be beyond the power of the Inspector.

Consequently, it is ordered that:

(1) Proper receipts shall be issued for collecting the expenses and reimbursement of the costs referred in Rule 17(2).

(2) The authorities of the respondents shall not collect any amount in excess of the actual expenses and the cost of transportation referred in Rule 17(2).

Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.