2026:JHHC:17479

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No.382 of 2020

------

M/s. Narsingh Ispat Limited, a Company incorporated under the

provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its Factory at Gram

Khunti, Kandra – Chowka Road, P.S. Chandil, District Saraikela

Kharsawan, Jharkhand, through one of its Director, Sri Ajay Singh,

son of Sri Umakant Singh, resident of B6-F8D, Moon City, Dimna

Road, Mango, P.O. & P.S. Mango, Town -Jamshedpur, District

Singhbhum East, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. Controller, Legal Metrology, Division of Legal Metrology (Weights

& Measures Division) Department of Food, Public Distribution &

Consumer Affairs, Government of Jharkhand, having its office

at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, HEC, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.

Jagarnathpur, Town & District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

3. Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology, having its office at

Jebiarnagar, near Krishi Bhawan, Sadar, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S.

Town & District Chaibasa.

4. Inspector, Legal Metrology, having its office at Purana Qila,

Seraikela-Kharswan.

… … Respondents

------

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Kr. Pasari, Advocate

Mr. Gaurav Kaushalesh, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohan Kr. Dubey, AC to AG

------

J U D G M E N T

CAV on : 13/05/2026 Pronounced on : 17/06/2026

------

By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed

for the following reliefs:-

“A) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s),

order(s) or direction(s), directing upon the

Respondents to show cause, as to how and

under what authority of law Rule 23(4) &

Rule 23(6) of the Jharkhand Legal Metrology

(Enforcement) Rules 2011 is being

interpreted in a manner so as to impose upon

2026:JHHC:17479

2

the Petitioner to purchase and keep in its

stock at site 50% or 1/3

rd

weights of the

capacity of weighing instrument in order to

get verification certificate, which is not a

dictum of the Act & the Rules.

B) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s),

order(s) or direction(s), holding and

declaring that Rule 23(6) is only for the

purpose of making available the verified and

stamped weights not exceeding 1/3

rd

of the

capacity of the instruments at the time of

verification, re-verification or inspection, but

for which the Petitioner need not purchase

and keep it in its stock said weights.

C) Consequent upon showing cause, if any, and

on being satisfied that the interpretation is

bad in law, the Respondents be directed to

carry out necessary verification of the

weights and measures required to be verified

and stamped at the factory premises of the

Petitioner and after giving detailed break-up

of the fees chargeable in terms of Rule 17,

necessary demand be raised and verification

certificate of the Petitioner be renewed

forthwith inasmuch as owing to

misinterpretation of law and the rules framed

thereunder, wrong demand has been raised

by the Respondents and the Petitioner has

paid in excess of its actual liability which after

detailed break-up can be ascertained by the

Department itself.

D) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or

direction, calling upon the respondents to

satisfy the Demand raised in terms of Notice

No.26 dated 05.07.2021 received by the

petitioner on 27.07.2021.

E) Consequent upon showing cause, if any, and

on being satisfied that the Demand raised, is

2026:JHHC:17479

3

directly in conflict with the Rules, more fully

Rule 23 of the Jharkhand Legal Metrology

(Enforcement) Rules, 2011, the Demand

dated 05.07.2021 be quashed and set aside.”

2. The petitioner – Company being an Industrial Unit in

Seraikela – Kharsawan, Jharkhand, is engaged in manufacturing

and sale of iron and steel products. The petitioner – Company has

installed two separate electronic weighbridges with an

independent capacity of 60 M.T. (Metric Tons) and 80 M.T.

respectively. The petitioner – Company in order to comply the

Legal Metrology Act,2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act,

2009”) and the Jharkhand Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules,

2011 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 2011”), got the

weights & measurements of those weighbridges duly verified and

obtained the verification certificate also. The petitioner – Company

also renewed the same from time to time. However, from 2015, in

spite of filing of application for verification / renewal of certificate,

no verification was being carried out and finally the impugned

demand was raised.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner –

Company, submitted that the impugned Notice issued by the

respondents is required to be condemned on the ground that

interpretation of Rule 23, more particularly Rules 23(4) and 23(6)

of the Rules, 2011, has not been done in its proper perspective by

the Authorities. He submitted that the petitioner – Company has

installed two separate electronic weighbridges with an

independent capacity of 60 M.T. and 80 M.T. respectively. He

2026:JHHC:17479

4

submitted that the petitioner-Company falls on the highest footing

in carrying out total number of verified and stamped weights, as

prescribed under Rule 23(4) of the Rules, 2011, which is applicable

to the petitioner-Company. He submitted that Rule 23(4) of the

Rules, 2011, is for the purpose of verification of the instrument to

ensure that the weights which are being reflected in the weighing

bridge is correct or not. Further, while referring to Section 2(v) of

the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, which defines the word

“Verification”, he submitted that if it is only for the purpose of

comparison, then the comparison will be drawn from the

instrument of the petitioner-Company vis. a vis. the open market

or the third-party facility, weights and measures which the

petitioner-Company shall be providing at the time of verification or

reverification in terms of Rule 23(6). He submitted that the

respondents have imposed the fee over and above the prescribed

fee schedule, in violation of the Rules. He finally submitted that

the respondents cannot force the petitioner-Company to buy 1/3

rd

weights of the machine i.e. the weight of the weighbridge as per

Rule 23 (6) of the Rules, 2011, instead at best they can ask to buy

the weights which are necessary for compliance of Rule 23(4) of

the Rules, 2011.

4. Per contra, learned counsel representing the

respondent – State submits that the impugned Notice does not

warrant any interference as the petitioner -Company has not

complied with the provisions of the Rule 23 of the Jharkhand Legal

Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011, in its true letter and spirit,

2026:JHHC:17479

5

and has also consequently defaulted in paying the fees. The

principal submission made by him is that Rules 23(4) and 23(6) of

the 2011 Rules cannot be read in isolation and both Rules will be

applicable together in case of the petitioner-Company, to avoid

tampering in the weighing machine. He submits that the

petitioner-Company must be ready with 1/3

rd

of the weight of the

machines, whenever the inspection is made. He submits that the

stamp should be on the weight (batghara) / inside the weight. As

per him, once the law provides that the petitioner-Company will

be ready with 1/3

rd

of the weights, it will naturally mean that the

petitioner-Company should own this extra 1/3

rd

of the weights, as

envisaged in Rule 23(6) of the Rules, 2011. Once it owns the same,

as per law, it has to pay the fees also for its verification.

5. After hearing the parties at great length and perusal of

the materials available on record, this Court finds that the

petitioner – Company in this writ petition is raising question of

interpretation of Rule 23, more particularly Rule 23(4) & 23(6) of

the Rules, 2011, on the basis of which the respondents have issued

a Notice No.26 dated 05.07.2021 (received by the petitioner on

27.07.2021) (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) i.e. during pendency

of this writ petition, directing the petitioner – Company to deposit

Rs.10,40,191/- towards verification and stamping fee of weights.

The weighbridge is referred to as the “principal weight” and the

smaller weight which are used for verification of the main

weighbridge is being termed in this judgment as “secondary

weight”.

2026:JHHC:17479

6

5.1. Further contention of the petitioner-Company is that

the respondents cannot force the petitioner-Company to purchase

the weights, which are necessary to verify the accuracy of the

weighbridge of the petitioner, as the entire provision of law do not

provide that the same be purchased by the petitioner. It is the

contention of the petitioner-Company that it can take these

weights from other sources also and can keep it after taking the

same on hire, provided those weights are legal and duly stamped

by the Authorities and the stamp is valid on the date of such

production.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of two

weighbridges of 60 M.T. and 80 M.T. respectively. For the sake of

brevity, these weighbridges are referred to as the principal weight

in this order / judgment. Further, as per Rule 23(4) and 23(6) of

the Rules, 2011, there has to be smaller weights for the purpose

of authenticating the accuracy of the “principal weights”. These

smaller weights for the sake of brevity in the judgment is referred

to as the “secondary weights”.

7. To adjudicate the present dispute, it is first necessary

to deal with the provision of the Act and the Rules, which were

referred to and are subject matter of this writ petition.

8. The Legal Metrology Act, 2009, is an Act to establish

and enforce standards of weights and measures, regulate trade

and commerce in weights, measures and other goods which are

sold or distributed by weight, measure or number and for matters

connected therewith or incidental thereto.

2026:JHHC:17479

7

Section 2(t) of the Act, 2009, defines the term “stamp”,

which reads as follows:-

“(t) “stamp” means a mark, made by

impressing, casting, engraving, etching,

branding, affixing pre-stressed paper seal or

any other process in relation to, any weight or

measure with a view to-

(i) certifying that such weight or measure

conforms to the standard specified by or under

this Act, or

(ii) indicating that any mark which was

previously made thereon certifying that such

weight or measure conforms to the standards

specified by or under this Act, has been

obliterated;”

Section 2(v) of the Act, 2009, defines the term

“verification”, which reads as follows:-

“(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 conforms to the

standards established by or under this Act and

also includes re-verification and calibration;”

Section 2(w) of the Act, 2009, defines the term “weight

or measure”, which reads as follows:-

“(w) “weight or measure” means a

weight or measure specified by or under this

Act and includes a weighing or measuring

instrument.”

2026:JHHC:17479

8

Section 24 of the Act, 2009, provides for verification

and stamping of weight or measure. It is necessary to quote

clause-(1) of Section 24, which reads as hereunder:-

“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, be general or special order, specify in this

behalf, on payment of such fees as may be

prescribed.”

(2) ………………………

(3) ……………………..

(4) ……………………..”

From the aforesaid Section 24, it is clear that a weight

or measure which is in possession or custody of any person and is

likely to be used by him for any transaction, such weight needs to

be verified. In terms of the aforesaid provision, weight of the

weighbridge of the petitioner also needs to be verified.

Section 53 of the Act, 2009, gives power to make Rules.

Section 53 reads as hereunder:-

“53. Power of State Government to make

rules.—(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

2026:JHHC:17479

9

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.”

From the aforesaid Section, it is clear that the Statute

confers power upon the State to make Rules to serve the purpose

and to carry out the provision of the Act.

2026:JHHC:17479

10

9. By invoking Section 53 of the Act of 2009, the State

Government promulgated “the Jharkhand Legal Metrology

(Enforcement) Rules, 2011”. Rule 15 of the Rules, 2011 deals with

verification and inspection of weights or measures, which reads as

hereunder:-

“15. Verification and inspection of weights

or measures –

(1) Every person using any weight or measure

in any transaction or for protection shall present

such weight or measure for verification/ re -

verification, at the office of the Legal Metrology

Officer or at such other place as the Legal

Metrology Officer may specify in this behalf on

or before the date on which the verification falls

due:

Provided that where any weight or

measure is such that it cannot, or should not be

moved from its location, the person using such

weight or measure shall report to the Legal

Metrology Officer at least thirty days in advance

of the date on which the verification falls due.

(2) Where any weight or measure is such that

it cannot, or should not, be moved from it’s

location, Legal Metrology Officer shall take

necessary steps for the verification of such

weight or measure at the place of its location.

(3) For the verification of weight or measure

referred to in sub-rule (2) the user shall provide

such facilities as may be specified by the Legal

Metrology Officer.

(4) Every weight or measure presented for

verification shall be complete in itself and shall

not bear a manufacturer’s mark which might be

mistaken for the Legal Metrology Officer’s

stamp.

2026:JHHC:17479

11

(5) Every weight or measure shall be verified

in a clean condition, and if necessary, the Legal

Metrology Officer shall require the owner or user

to make necessary arrangement for the

purpose.

(6) A Legal Metrology Officer may visit, as

frequently as possible during the period

specified in The Legal Metrology (General)

Rules, 2011 every premise within the local limits

of his jurisdiction to inspect and test any weight

or measure which is being or is intended or

likely to be used in any transaction or for

protection.

(7) The Legal Metrology Officer shall

obliterate the stamp on any weight or measure,

if it is found during inspection that:-

(a) Any weight or measure which being due

for re-verification has not been submitted for

such re-verification.

(b) Any weight or measure which does not

conform to the Standards established by or

under the Act.

Provided that where the Legal

Metrology Officer is of opinion that the defect or

error in such weight or measure is not such as

to require immediate obliteration of the stamp,

he shall inform the user of the defect or error

found in the weight or measure and call upon

user to remove the defect or error within such

time, not exceeding eight days and shall-

(i) if user fails to remove the defect or error

within that period, obliterate the stamp, or

(ii) if the defect or error is so removed as to

take the weight or measure conform to the

standards established by or under the Act,

verify and stamp such weight or measure.

Explanation: The obliteration of the stamp on

any weight or measure shall not take, away or

2026:JHHC:17479

12

abridge the power of the Legal Metrology Officer

to seize such weight or measure in accordance

with the provisions of the Act.”

The first proviso of Section 15 provides that where any

weight or measure cannot be moved from the location then to

verify the accuracy of the said weight, the inspection has to be

done after giving thirty days’ notice in advance from the date when

the verification falls due. In those cases, the verification has to be

done at the place where the weight is located.

Section 16 provides for stamping of weights and

measures. As per the aforesaid Section, a weight which is verified

and conforms, needs to be stamped. Section 16 reads as

hereunder:-

“16. Stamping of weights or measures -(1)

The Legal Metrology Officer shall stamp every

weight or measure, if after testing and

verification, he is satisfied that such weight or

measure conforms to the standards established

by or under the Act, with a stamp of uniform

design, issued by the Controller, which shall

indicate the number allotted for administrative

purpose to the Legal Metrology Officer by whom

it is stamped.

Provided that if by reason of the size

or nature of any weight or measure it is not

desirable or practicable to put a stamp thereon,

the Legal Metrology Officer shall take such

action as may be directed by the controller by a

general or a special order in writing.

(2) The Legal Metrology Officer shall also mark

the year and its quarter of stamping on every

verified weight or measure except when the size

2026:JHHC:17479

13

or nature of such weight or measure makes it

impracticable.

Explanation- A year shall be deemed to consist

of four quarters of which first quarter shall be of

the months of January, February and March

which shall be marked as A; second quarter

shall be of the months of April, May and June

which shall be marked as B, third quarter shall

be of the months of July, August and September

which shall be marked as C and fourth quarter

shall be of the months of October, November

and December which shall be marked as D.

(3) On completion of verification and stamping

the Leal Metrology Officer shall issue a

certificate of verification in the form set out in

Schedule VIII.

(4) Where a certificate of verification is lost or

destroyed, the holder of the certificate of

verification shall forthwith apply to the Legal

Metrology Officer who had issued the certificate,

of verification. Every such application for the

issue of a dupl icate certificate, shall be

accompanied by a fee of rupees ten.

(5) On receipt of an application under sub-rule

(4), the Legal Metrology Officer shall issue to

the applicant a duplicate copy of the certificate

of verification marked 'DUPLICATE

Section 17 provides for payment of fees for verification

of the weight and measures. Section 17 reads as hereunder:-

“17. Fee for verification - (1) Fees payable for

verification and stamping of weight or measure

at the office or camp office of the Leal 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

2026:JHHC:17479

14

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 of

weights and measures 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, Non -automatic 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 rates specified in Schedule IX

shall be payable for every quarter of the year or

part thereof.

(4) Full fee shall be payable for re-stamping any

weight or measure held in stock with

manufacturer or dealer within the period

specified, in The Legal Metrology (General)

Rules, 2011 from the date on which it was last

stamped, provided that the original stamp was

2026:JHHC:17479

15

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 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 IX and if found correct

shall be stamped.”

10. It is the case of the petitioner that by the impugned

demand, the respondents are demanding the fees for verification

of the secondary weight, which according to the petitioner the

respondents are mandating the petitioner to possess the same as

an owner in terms of Section 23(6) of the Rules, 2011.

11. Now, for proper adjudication of this writ petition, Rules

23(4) and 23(6), are quoted herein below:-

“23. Provision relating to use of weights

measure, etc-

(1) ………………….

(2) ……………….

(3) …………………

(4) To ensure a proper check of the accuracy of

a weighing instrument the user shall keep at the

site of each weighing instrument duly verified

and stamped weights equal to one-tenth of the

capacity of the instrument or maximum upto

one tonne capacity of weight and consumer can

also check the accuracy of the weighing

instrument.

Provided that the Controller may

2026:JHHC:17479

16

specify the total number of verified and stamped

weights to be maintained in trade premises

where the number of weighing instruments are

more than one.

(5) ……………….

(6) The user of Weighing instrument of the

capacity of five hundred kilogram or above, shall

provide such number of duly verified and

stamped weights not exceeding one third of the

capacity of the instrument as may be required

by the Legal Metrology Officer for the purpose

of its verification, re-verification or inspection.”

12. As per the Rules, 2011, in terms of Rule 23 (4), the

accuracy of the weighbridge of the petitioner has to be checked.

As per the said Rule 23(4), for the aforesaid purpose, the

petitioner-Company has to keep weights equal to 1/10

th

(one

tenth) of the capacity of the instrument or maximum up to one ton

capacity of the principal weight. These weights are to be kept so

that the accuracy of its main weighbridge can be verified.

13. The aforesaid provision of law also provides that any

consumer can also check the accuracy of the weight instruments.

These weights which are either 1/10

th

of the principal weight or

one ton as the case may be, which are secondary in nature, are to

be kept to verify the accuracy of the principal weight, which is the

weighbridge in the instant case.

14. Since the aforesaid provision provides that a consumer

can also check the accuracy of the weighbridge by using these

secondary weights, it is the duty of the petitioner-Company, casted

upon by Statute, to keep these secondary weights at the site of

2026:JHHC:17479

17

the main weighing instrument i.e. the weighbridges and that too,

at all point of time. They should be kept at the site and must be

provided if any of the consumers want to check the accuracy of

the main machine for their satisfaction. These secondary weights

as per the Act, 2009 and the Rules, 2011, are also to be verified

and stamped by the Authorities under the Act and Rules framed

thereunder, for which fees are to be paid by the owner of these

weights.

15. The Proviso to Rule 23 (4) confers power upon the

Controller to specify the total number of verified and stamped

weights to be maintained in a premises where the number of

weighing instruments are more than one. This is an additional

power given to the Controller. If such power is exercised and any

information to that effect is given to the petitioner-Company, it has

to keep such number of weights at the site as directed by the

Controller, as admittedly, the petitioner has two weighbridges,

then in terms of the proviso of Rule 23(4), the Controller can direct

the petitioner to keep more than one weight.

16. Rule 23 (6) is a special provision for weighing

instrument of the capacity of 500 Kilogram or more. After going

through this provision, it is clear that the purpose of this provision

is somewhat different to that of Rule 23(4). As per the said

provision, since admittedly, capacity of both the weighing

instruments (weighbridges) of the petitioner-Company is more

than 500 Kilogram, petitioner has to provide duly verified and

stamped weights, up 1/3

rd

of the capacity of its weighbridge, which

2026:JHHC:17479

18

may be required by the Legal Metrology Officer for the purpose of

its verification, re-verification or inspection. As per the said

provision, this secondary weight up to the weight of 1/3

rd

of the

weighbridge is for the purpose of its verification, re-verification and

inspection by the Legal Metrology Officer. This provision does not

give any power to the consumer to verify, re-verify or inspect the

primary weight; by using those secondary weights.

17. Further, Rule 23(6) is only applicable when a Legal

Metrology Officer intends to verify, re-verify and inspect the

weighbridge of the petitioner-Company.

18. As per Rule 15 Proviso, the Legal Metrology Officer by

giving advance notice of thirty days’ of the date on which the

verification falls due, can inspect these primary weights which

cannot be moved.

19. In this case, the weighbridge definitely cannot be

moved, thus the Legal Metrology Officer has to give thirty days’

clear notice before verifying, re-verifying and inspecting in terms

of Rule 23(6). Thus, the intent of Rule 23(6) is very clear and a

holistic reading of this Rule with the other provision mentioned

above will clearly suggest that the Legal Metrology Officer will give

a notice to the petitioner-Company for verification, re-verification

or inspection of its weighbridge and at the time of such inspection,

the petitioner-Company shall provide duly verified and stamped

weights not exceeding 1/3

rd

of the weight of these weighbridges.

20. The word used in Rule 23 (6) is “shall provide”. The

word “provide” as per the 11

th

Edition of Oxford Dictionary means

2026:JHHC:17479

19

“to give something to somebody or make it available for them to

use.” As per the said dictionary, one of the synonyms of the said

word is “supply”. Thus, it is the duty of the petitioner-Company to

give and make available these secondary weights which should

also be stamped and verified at the time of verification, re -

verification or inspection of the primary weights by the Legal

Metrology Officer in terms of Rule 23(6).

21. From the aforesaid provisions and its interpretation, it

is apparent that nowhere the Rule provides or mandate that the

petitioner – Company should be the owner of these secondary

weights. Its duty is only to provide, at the time of inspection, those

weights, which would be duly stamped and verified. If at the time

of such inspection in terms of Rule 23(6), the petitioner-Company

fails to provide the same, the petitioner -Company can be

penalized. They can also be penalized if the secondary weights so

provided is not verified and / or stamped. If at the time of

inspection, the petitioner-Company provides those weights and if

the same are in order and duly stamped and verified, the Legal

Metrology Officer cannot question the ownership of the same. At

best, the petitioner – Company can be asked by the inspectors to

provide the information about the owners of the secondary

weights, if the petitioner-Company has arranged the same on hire

or on rent. In that case the petitioner has to provide the

information and must also provide verification certificate or

authenticated copies of receipts showing payment of fees for such

verification and stamping of secondary weights.

2026:JHHC:17479

20

22. Similar is the provision in Rule 23(4), though the word

“provide” is not used in the aforesaid provision of law. What is used

is “the user shall keep at the site of each weighing instrument”.

This means that it is the duty of the petitioner-Company, to keep

at the site these secondary weights, for all times to come. As per

Rule 23(6), the secondary weights have to be provided at the time

of inspection, but as per Rule 23(4) the secondary weights

mentioned therein should be kept at the site for all times to come.

Further, the secondary weight can be used by any consumer to

verify the accuracy of the weighbridge, and must be provided to a

consumer on demand.

23. Though Rule 23(4) also does not mandate that the

petitioner-Company should be the owner of the secondary weights,

yet considering the nature and the purpose for which these weights

are to be kept in terms of the aforesaid Rules, the petitioner should

possess the said secondary weights as the owner of the same, as

he has to keep these weights at the premises for the entire period.

24. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, I hold that the

petitioner-Company is not legally bound to purchase the secondary

weights, which is to be provided by the petitioner-Company, in

terms of Rule 23(6) of the Rules, 2011, but the weights which are

to be kept in terms of Rule 23(4), must be owned by the petitioner.

The petitioner has to pay the necessary fees for stamping and

verification of these weights. Petitioner’s duty is to ensure that a

duly stamped weights, as per the capacity mentioned in Rule 23(4)

as a secondary weight, is always kept at the site. It is also its duty

2026:JHHC:17479

21

to provide separate secondary weights as per the capacity

mentioned in term of Rule 23(6) at the time when the Legal

Metrology Officer visits the premises to verify, re-verify and

inspect the primary weight i.e. the weighbridges of the petitioner.

Such weight may not be owned by the petitioner.

25. Consequently, the Demand Notice No.26 dated

05.07.2021, is set aside.

26. So far as the dues or any amount of fees etc., which

are to be paid by the petitioner – Company for verification and

stamping of the weights being maintained by the petitioner -

Company in terms of Rule 23(4), is concerned, it will be open to

the respondent to issue fresh demand. The respondents cannot

demand / charge any fees for stamping and verification, if the

weights which the petitioner provides at the time of verification,

re-verification and inspection in terms of Rule 23(6) are not owned

by the petitioner.

27. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ

petition stands allowed.

28. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands

disposed of.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi

17/06/2026

Prashant

A.F.R.