1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the communication dated 05.10.2016 issued by the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Akola to the petitioner-Company intimating it that as Section 3 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (for short, the Act of 2009) had overriding effect over the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short, the Act of 1968), the stand taken by the Company that the provisions of the Act of 1968 would prevail over that Act of 2009 in the context of the labels on its insecticide packages was not acceptable. The Company was informed that the offence alleged was compoundable under the Act of 2009 and hence it was called upon to submit a consent letter in the prescribed format for getting the matter compounded.

3. The facts relevant for deciding the challenge raised in the writ petition is that the petitioner-Company is incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of crop protection products as well as agro chemicals. The products manufactured and marketed by the Company are regulated by the provisions of the Act of 1968. The packaging and labelling of insecticides for sale, distribution and stocking was required to be done in the manner prescribed by the Insecticides Rules, 1971 (for short, the Rules of 1971). The Company contends that it is also required to follow the provisions of the Act of 2009 as well as the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (for short, the Rules of 2011). On 15.07.2016 the Inspector of Legal Metrology seized certain packaged products of the Company and issued a memorandum to it in which it was stated that there was a violation of the provisions of the Act of 2009 and the Rules of 2011 in the matter of packaging of its products by the Company. On 02.08.2016 the Company through its authorised signatory responded to the memorandum as issued and stated that there was no violation of the Rules of 2011 as alleged. Principally, it was the stand of the Company that the Act of 1968 being a special Act with regard to insecticides, its provisions would prevail over the Act of 2009 which was in the nature of general law. The Inspector of Legal Metrology considered the reply as given by the Company and on 05.10.2016 did not accept the stand as taken by the Company. He informed the Company that the offence in question was compoundable and if the Company desired to have the matter compounded, it should submit a consent letter in the prescribed format. Being aggrieved of the stand as taken by the Inspector of Legal Metrology, the Company has challenged the communication dated 05.10.2016 in this writ petition.

4. Shri Sunil Narula, learned counsel for the Company submitted that the Inspector of Legal Metrology proceeded on an incorrect legal premise to hold that the provisions of the Act of 2009 would override the provisions of the Act of 1968. He submitted that the Act of 1968 was in the nature of a special law framed specifically for regulating the manufacture, sale, distribution and use of insecticides. In the matter of sale, distribution and packaging of insecticides the Company was required to rigorously comply with the provisions of the Rules of 1971 and especially Chapter-V thereof. Under that Chapter packing and labelling of insecticides was to be done in the manner prescribed therein. The Company was complying with the requirements of Chapter V of the Rules, 1971 and while doing so, it could not be required to comply with the provisions of the Rules of 2011 to the extent they were inconsistent with the Rules of 1971. Inviting attention to Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 2011, it was submitted that the provisions of Rule 7(1) to 7(3) thereof were not applicable to a package if the information to be specified on such package under Rule 7 was also required to be given by or under any other law for the time being in force. A similar stand was taken with regard to the alleged violation of Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules of 2011 that the Act of 2009 was in the nature of a general law while the Act of 1968 and Rules of 1971 were in the nature of a special law regulating the manufacture, sale and distribution of insecticides. The learned counsel by placing reliance on the decision in Commercial Tax Officer, Rajasthan vs. M/s. Binani Cements Ltd. and another (2014) 8 SCC 319 submitted that the Inspector of Legal Metrology failed to take into consideration the effect of the provisions of the Act of 1968 as well as the Rules of 1971. If the Company while complying with the said provisions was not in a position to comply with the requirements of the Act of 2009 and the Rules of 2011, it could not be proceeded against as this would result in permitting the general law to prevail over the special law in the matter of sale, distribution and stocking of insecticides. Referring to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents it was urged that it would not be permissible for the respondents to assign fresh and different reasons in support of the stand as taken than those assigned in the impugned communication. The challenge as raised was required to be adjudicated in the light of the contents of the impugned communication alone. He also referred to the decisions in Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. VS. Essaar Power Ltd (2008) 4 SCC 755, Maya Mathew vs. State of Kerala and ors. AIR 2010 SC 1932 and Dipak Babaria and anr. vs. State of Gujrat and ors. (2014) 3 SCC 502 in support of his submission that the impugned communication was liable to be set aside.

5. Shri N. R. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions. Referring to the affidavit dated 26.09.2018 filed by the Deputy Controller of Legal Metrology as well as the affidavit dated 06.02.2019 also by the said Authority, it was submitted that the contention of the Company that it was bound only by the provisions of special law namely, the Act of 1968 and the Rules of 1971 was not legally correct in view of the provisions of Rule 26 of the Rules of 2011 which specifies the non-applicability of those Rules to certain packages. Insecticides dealt with by the petitioner were not mentioned in Rule 26 of the Rules of 2011 and therefore, it was incumbent upon the Company to comply with the said Rules. It was submitted that Rules 7 to 9 of the Rules of 2011 are required to be complied with while dealing with the packaged commodities. The learned Assistant Government Pleader also referred to the decision in Maya Mathew (supra) to submit that while undertaking a harmonious construction of the provisions of the general law and the special law, the intention of the rule making authority has to be considered and if the intention is clear that the general law should prevail then the same should be given effect to. The intention behind Rules 7 to 9 of the Rules of 2011 was clear and compliance thereof was required to be made notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V of the Rules of 1971. It was thus submitted that the Inspector of Legal Metrology rightly referred to Section 3 of the Act of 2009 as the provisions of the Act of 2009 had overriding effect over the provisions of the Act of 1968 and the Rules of 1971.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and we have also perused the documentary material placed on record. We have given due consideration to the rival submissions. A perusal of the memorandum dated 15.07.2016 indicates that the Inspector of Legal Metrology noticed certain violations on inspection of the packages containing insecticides being dealt with by the Company in the context of the Rules of 2011. The violations mentioned in the memorandum are as under :

“1. In the declaration of net quantity and MRP, the size of numerals is not as per the size prescribed under Rule 7;

2. In the declaration of net quantity the area surrounding the space is not as described in Rule 8;

3. The declarations are not given as per Rule 9.”

7. In reply to the memorandum, the Company stated that insofar as the violation of Rule 7 of the Rules 2011 was concerned, in view of Rule 7(4) the Company was not required to comply with the provisions of Rule 7(1) to 7(3) of the Rules of 2011 as the Company was required to comply with the requirements prescribed by Chapter V of the Rules of 1971 and especially Rules 16 to 20 thereof. As regards violation of Rule 8 it was stated that the Act of 1968 being a special law in respect of insecticides, the provisions of that Act would prevail over the Act of 2009 and the Rules of 2011 which were in the nature of general law. As regards the violation of Rule 9 it was stated that the memorandum did not refer to any specific violation of Rule 9 and it was asserted that the labels on the packages complied with the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules of 2011 as well as Chapter V of the Rules of 1971. On that basis the Company requested that the memorandum be withdrawn.

8. Since it is the specific case of the Company that the provisions of the Act of 1968 and the Rules of 1971 in the matter of packing and labelling of insecticides are in the nature of special law, they would override the provisions of the Act of 2009 and the Rules of 2011 that are in the nature of general law, it would be necessary to examine the said contention in the light of the relevant statutory provisions and the rules framed thereunder.

9. The Act of 1968 has been enacted to regulate the import, manufacture, sale, transport, distribution and use of insecticides with a view to prevent risk to human beings or animals and for matters connected therewith. Section 2 stipulates that the provisions of the Act of 1968 are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. Under Section 36 of the Act of 1968, power has been conferred on the Central Government to make Rules for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of that Act. Section 36(2)(a) empowers rules to be made to prescribe the method of packing and labelling of insecticides. The Rules of 1971 have been accordingly framed and Chapter V prescribes the manner of packing and labelling of any insecticide. Rule 16 prohibits the sale and distribution of any insecticide unless it is packed and labelled in accordance with the Rules of 1971 while Rule 17 specifies the manner of packing of insecticides. Rule 18 requires a leaflet to be included while packing every insecticide containing the details prescribed. Rule 19 specifies the manner of labelling of various particulars to be printed or written in indelible ink on the label of the innermost container of any insecticide and also on the outmost covering in which the container is packed. Rule 20 prohibits altering inscription on containers, labels or wrappers of insecticides. Thus the manner in which packing and labelling of insecticides as well as particulars to be mentioned thereon is stipulated in Chapter V of the Rules of 1971.

It can thus be said that in matter of regulating the sale, distribution and use of insecticides the Act of 1968 is a special law and Chapter V of the Rules of 1971 specifies the manner of packing, labelling and description of insecticides.

10. Insofar as the Act of 2009 is concerned, it is seen from the Statement of objects and reasons behind enacting the same that initially in India, uniform standards of weights measures based on the metric system were established in the year 1956 and were revised in the year 1976 so as to give effect to the international system of units. It refers to the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 as well as the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and further states that it had become imperative to combine the provisions of the said Acts to get rid of the anomalies and make the provisions simple. With that object in mind, the Parliament enacted the Act of 2009. Section 3 prescribes that the provisions of the Act of 2009 would have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment than the Act of 2009. Section 18(1) prescribes various declarations to be made on a package containing any pre-packaged commodity as prescribed. Section 52 empowers the Central Government to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act. Section 52(2)(j) empowers framing of rules with regard to standard quantities or number and the manner in which the packages shall bear the declarations and particulars under Section 18(1) of the Act of 2009. Section 55 of the Act of 2009 provides that the provisions of the Act insofar as they relate to verification and stamping of weights and measures would not be applicable to any weight or measure used in any factory exclusively engaged in the manufacture of arms and ammunition or both for the use of the Armed Forces of the Union, used for scientific investigation or for research and if manufactured exclusively for export. Section 57 repeals the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 as well as the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985.

Various provisions of the Act of 2009 indicate that it has been enacted to establish and enforce standards of weights and measures. Use of non-standard weight or measure as well as sale or delivery of commodities by non-standard measure attracts penalty. The Act of 2009 is thus an Act of general nature which seeks to enforce standards of weights and measures especially with regard to pre-packaged commodities.

11. By virtue of the power conferred by Section 52(1) read with Section 52 (2)(j) and (q) of the Act 2009, the Rules of 2011 have been brought into force on 01.04.2011. Under Rule 6 of the Rules 2011 various declarations are required to be made on every package or on the label affixed thereto. The declaration includes (a) the name and address of the manufacturer, or where the manufacturer is not the packer the name and address of the manufacturer and packer, (b) the common or generic names of the commodity contained in the package (c) the net quantity in terms of the standard unit of weight or measure of the commodity contained in the package, (d) the month and year in which the commodity is manufactured or pre-packed or imported, (e) the retail sale price (MRP) of the package, (f) the dimensions of the commodity contained in the package where relevant and (g) any other matter as specified in the rules. These declarations include a declaration of name and address of the manufacturer (Rule 10), declaration of quantity and the manner of making such declaration (Rules 11 and 12), declaration with regard to statement of units of weight, measure or number (Rule 13) and declaration with regard to dimensions of container type commodities (Rule 17). These Rules have been amended from time to time. Since the impugned communication has been issued pursuant to the memorandum dated 15.07.2016, the statutory provisions as prevailing on that date would be required to be taken into consideration. Rule 7 prescribes the principal display panel with regard to its area, size and letter, etc. Rule 7(2) prescribes the height of any numeral in the declaration required under the said rules; while Rule 7(3) prescribes the height of letters in the declaration. Rule 7(4) on which the Company has relied upon in its response to the memorandum as issued reads as under:

“(4) The provisions under sub-rules (1) to (3) shall not apply to a package if the information to be specified on such package under this rule is also required to be given by or under any other law for the time being in force.”

12. The Company while replying to the memorandum dated 15.07.2016 has taken the stand that since the field is governed by the Act of 1968 and the Rules of 1971 which are in the nature of a special law for regulating the import, manufacture, sale, transport, distribution and use of insecticides, the said special law would prevail over the provisions of the Act of 2009 and the Rules of 2011 as the same was a general law in the matter of enforcement of standards of weights and measures and the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The learned counsel for the Company relied upon the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant which means general law yields to special law if they operate in the same field on the same subject. To consider the applicability of the aforesaid principle to the present case, it would be necessary to bear in mind the following aspects :-

(a) Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. A statute is best interpreted when we know the reason for enacting the statute - Reserve Bank of India Vs. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. (1987) 1 SCC 424.

(b) While determining whether the statute is a special or general one, focus must be on the principal subject matter coupled with a particular perspective with reference to the intendment of the Act - Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 76.

(c) When a general Act is subsequently passed, presumption is that the Parliament has not repealed or modified the former special Act unless the special Act has again received consideration from Parliament - U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Hari Shankar Jain (1978) 4 SCC 16.

(d) There is a well known rule that a subsequent general Act does not affect a prior special Act by implication. When the legislature has given its attention to a separate subject and made provision for it, the presumption is that a subsequent general enactment is not intended to interfere with the special provision unless it manifests that intention very clearly – LIC vs. D.J.Bahadur (1981) 1 SCC 315.

(e) There is a presumption against repeal by implication and the reason of this rule is based on the theory that the legislature while enacting a law has complete knowledge of the existing laws on the same subject matter and therefore when it does not provide a repealing provision it gives out an intention not to repeal the existing legislation. Such presumption can be rebutted and repeal by necessary implication can be inferred only when the provisions of the latter Act are so inconsistent with or repugnant to the provisions of the earlier Act inasmuch as the two cannot stand together - Municipal Council, Palai vs. T.J.Joseph AIR 1963 SC 1561.

The aforesaid decisions have been considered in Binani Cements Ltd. (supra) and it has been held that the rule of statutory construction that the specific governs the general is not an absolute rule but is merely a strong indication of statutory meaning that can be overcome by textual indications that point in the other direction. A subject specific provision relating to a specific, defined and descriptable subject is regarded as an exception to and would prevail over a general provision relating to a broad subject.

In Maya Mathew (supra), a decision on which both the learned counsel placed reliance it has been held as under :

“11. The rules of interpretation when a subject is governed by two sets of Rules are well settled. They are:

(i) When a provision of law regulates a particular subject and a subsequent law contains a provision regulating the same subject, there is no presumption that the later law repeals the earlier law. The rule making authority while making the later rule is deemed to know the existing law on the subject. If the subsequent law does not repeal the earlier rule, there can be no presumption of an intention to repeal the earlier rule.

(ii) When two provisions of law – one being a general law and the other being special law govern a matter, the Court should endeavour to apply a harmonious construction to the said provisions. But where the intention of the rule making authority is made clear either expressly or impliedly, as to which law should prevail, the same shall be given effect.

(iii) If the repugnancy or inconsistency subsists in spite of an effort to read them harmoniously, the prior special law is not presumed to be repealed by the later general law. The prior special law will continue to apply and prevail in spite of the subsequent general law. But where a clear intention to make a rule of universal application by superseding the earlier special law is evident from the later general law, then the later general law, will prevail over the prior special law.

(iv) Where a later special law is repugnant to or inconsistent with an earlier general law, the later special law will prevail over the earlier general law.”

13. Section 3 of the Act of 2009 seeks to give overriding effect to the provisions of the Act of 2009 over any other law. Section 3 has been referred to in the impugned communication by the Inspector of Legal Metrology and it reads as under :

“3. Provisions of this Act to override provisions of any other law:-

The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act.”

The effect of the presence of such non obstante clause has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.S.Raghunath vs State of Karnataka and another AIR 1992 SC 81. After referring to various earlier decisions it was held in paragraph 11 as under:-

“11. …… On a conspectus of the above authorities it emerges that the non obstante clause is appended to a provision with a view to give the enacting part of the provision an overriding effect in case of a conflict. But the non obstante clause need not necessarily and always be co-extensive with the operative part as to have the effect of cutting down the clear terms of an enactment and if the words of the enactment are clear and are capable of a clear interpretation on a plain and grammatical construction of the words the non obstante clause cannot cut down the construction and restrict the scope of its operation. In such cases the non obstante clause has to be read as clarifying the whole position and must be understood to have been incorporated in the enactment by the Legislature by way of abundant caution and not by way of limiting the ambit and scope of the Special Rules.”

It was further observed that influence of a non obstante clause has to be considered on the basis of the context in which it is used. The entire statute as a whole must be considered and the Court must compare that clause with other parts of the law and the setting in which the clause to be interpreted occurs.

14. There being a presumption against repeal by implication, the Act of 1968 which is an earlier special law would have to be harmoniously construed with the Act of 2009 which is a later general Act. Since the Act of 2009 vide Section 3 seeks to give overriding effect to the provisions of that Act over any other inconsistent provision contained in any other enactment or in any instrument having effect by virtue of such other enactment, it is clear that if a matter covered by the Act of 1968 is also found to be covered by the Act of 2009, the provisions of the Act of 2009 would have overriding effect over the Act of 1968. But, if a matter has been specifically dealt with by the Act of 1968 or the Rules of 1971 in the context of packaging and labelling of insecticides those provisions would prevail over the general provisions under the Act of 2009 or the Rules of 2011. This has to be done by applying the principles of harmonious construction and the maxim - generalia specialibus non derogant.

15. In the memorandum dated 15.07.2016, it has been stated that in the declaration of net quantity and maximum retail price(MRP), the size of numerals was not as per the size prescribed by Rule 7 of the Rules of 2011. Under Rule 6(1)(c) of the Rules of 2011 a declaration as regards net quantity in terms of the standard unit of weight or measure of the commodity contained in the package has to be given. To consider whether the Company can rely upon the provision of Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 2011 to contend that it was not required to comply with the provisions of Rule 7(1) to 7(3), it would be necessary to examine whether similar information as required to be given under the aforesaid Rules is also required to be given under the Rules of 1971. As noted above, Chapter-V of the Rules of 1971 deals with packing and labelling of insecticides. Rule 19 of the Rules of 1971 would be material for the present purpose. Under that Rule particulars such as name of the manufacturer, name of the insecticide, registration number of the insecticide, kind and name of active and other ingredients and percentage of each, net content of volume, batch number, expiry date and antidote statement is required to be printed or written in indelible ink on the label of the innermost container of any insecticide and also on the outmost covering in which the container is packed. Under Rule 19(3) a label is required to contain a square in a prominent place occupying not less than 1/16th (one sixteenth) of the total area of the face of the label set at an angle of 45 degrees. While Rule 19(4) refers to the contents of the upper portion of the square, Rule 19(5) refers to the contents of the lower portion of the square.

From Rule 19, it is thus clear that various particulars prescribed therein have to be furnished which include net content of volume in terms of weight, measure, number of units of activity as the case may be. The weight and volume has to be expressed in the metric system. Particulars to be furnished are specific in nature with emphasis on symbols and warning statements. The reason for furnishing these particulars is obvious since the package contains an insecticide which could either be extremely toxic, highly toxic, moderately toxic or slightly toxic.

16. On a combined reading of Rule 6 (1)(c) and Rule 7 of the Rules of 2011 with Rule 19 of the Rules of 1971, it can be seen that various particulars are required to be printed or written on the label of the container in which the insecticide is packed. The particulars include the net content of volume. The size of the label containing such particulars is also prescribed and special instructions describing the nature of the insecticide is also required to be specifically given under Rule 19. It can thus be said that insofar as the particulars of net content of volume is concerned, the field is covered by Rule 19(1)(v) of the Rules of 1971. Rule 6(1)(c) of the Rules of 2011 also requires a declaration with regard to the net quantity in the package. Hence under Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 2011, as the information to be specified on a package under Rule 7 is also required to be given under any other law for the time being in force which in the present case are the Rules of 1971, the provisions of Rule 7(1) to 7(3) of the Rules of 2011 would not apply. This contention raised by the Company to the extent of particulars of net content of volume being required to be given under Rule 19 (1)(v) of the Rules of 1971 deserves acceptance. In other words, as information/particulars with regard to net content of volume is required to be furnished under Rule 19 (1)(v) of the Rules of 1971, by virtue of Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 2011 as it then stood, Rule 7(1) to Rule 7(3) would not be applicable.

17. As regards the size of numerals in the declaration of maximum retail price(MRP) it can be seen that the declaration with regard to retail sale price of the package has to be made as per Rule 6(1)(e) of the Rules of 2011. However under Rule 19(1) of the Rules of 1971 the particulars with regard to MRP or retail sale price of the package is not required to be printed or written on the label of the container in which the insecticide is packed. In other words, the Rules of 1971 do not prescribe the manner in which the retail sale price of the package or MRP has to be mentioned. Such declaration is only contemplated by Rule 6(1)(e) of the Rules of 2011. Hence for this reason it would not be permissible for the Company to rely upon the exclusionary clause under Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 2011 as such declaration based on the retail sale price of the package/MRP is not required to be given under the Act of 1968 or the Rules of 1971. To that extent, the violation indicated in the memorandum dated 15.07.2016 as regards the size of numerals in the declaration of MRP would require consideration.

Thus as regards the first violation mentioned in the memorandum, in view of the provisions of Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 2011 since the Company is required to furnish particulars with regard to net content of volume under Rule 19(1)(v) of the Rules of 1971, it would be entitled to rely upon Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 2011 to that extent alone. It would not be permissible for the Company to rely upon Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 2011 insofar as the violation with regard to the declaration pertaining to MRP in the context of the size of numerals is concerned.

18. The second violation indicated in the memorandum dated 15.07.2016 is that in the declaration of net quantity, the area surrounding the space is not as described in Rule 8. Under the proviso to Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2011, the area surrounding the quantity declaration has to be free from printed information on all sides of the numeral in the declaration. According to the Company, since it is required to furnish various particulars as stipulated by Rule 19 of the Rules of 1971 besides those prescribed under the Rules of 2011, it is not possible for it to keep the area surrounding the quantity declaration free from printed information as stipulated. As stated above, the particulars required to be furnished on the container in which the insecticide is packed includes net content of volume on the label so printed or written. Rule 19(3) of the Rules of 1971 requires a square to be placed in a prominent place occupying not less than 1/16th of the total area of the face of the label. The said square is required to be divided into two equal triangles and sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 19 specify the contents of those triangles. Besides this, under Rule 19(6) a package containing insecticide that is highly inflammable or that it should be kept away from heat or open flame and the like is also required to be indicated on the label. Such label and leaflets are required to be printed in Hindi, English and in one or two regional languages in use in the areas where the said packages are likely to be stocked, sold or distributed as specified under Rule 19(7).

It can thus be seen that Rule 19 of the Rules of 1971 requires various particulars to be printed or written considering the fact that the package contains an insecticide. Rule 19 is comprehensive in nature as the area within which the aforesaid information is required to be disclosed has also been stipulated. It can therefore be said that insofar as Rule 19 of the Rules of 1971 is concerned, it seeks to ensure providing all vital information in the context of a package containing an insecticide. Rule 19 is in the nature of precautionary provision with the object of safety in mind. An Insecticide Inspector has the power under Section 21(1)(d) of the Act of 1968 to stop the distribution, sale or use of an insecticide if he has reason to believe that the same is being distributed, sold or used in contravention of the provisions of the Act of 1968 or the Rules of 1971. On the other hand, Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2011 and proviso thereto is a general provision merely indicating the area surrounding the quantity declaration to be free from printed information. Ensuring compliance with Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2011 can result in non-furnishing of relevant information under Rule 19(1) of the Rules of 1971 due to lack of space. Since the net content of volume is required to be disclosed under Rule 19(1)(v) of the Rules 1971 alongwith other particulars therein, Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2011 which is of a general nature would have to yield to the provisions of Rule 19(1)of the Rules 1971 to the extent the area surrounding the quantity declaration is required to be kept free from printed information as Rules 19(3) to 19(7) statutorily require relevant and vital information about the insecticide packed to be provided on the package. In any event, quantity declaration sought under the Rules of 2011 is also required to be given under Rule 19(1)(v) of the Rules of 1971.

19. The third violation indicated in the memorandum dated 15.07.2016 is that declarations have not been given as per Rule 9 of the Rules of 2011. Under Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 2011 every declaration as required to be made on a package has to be legible and prominent, the numerals of the retail sale price and net quantity declaration have to be printed, painted or inscribed on the package in a colour that contrasts conspicuously with the background of the label. According to the Company, the memorandum insofar as it relates to this violation is vague and there is no specific violation pointed out. The Company has asserted that the label affixed on its packages complies with the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules of 2011 as well as Chapter V of the Rules of 1971. In the facts of the case in hand, we find that the Inspector of Legal Metrology ought to have specified which declaration as required to be made under the Rules of 2011 was not legible and prominent or that the numerals of the retail sale price and net quantity were not in a colour that contrasted with the background of the label. The violation as alleged appears to be of a general nature without giving any details as have been given with regard to the other two violations that have been dealt with hereinabove. For want of details and particulars of the declaration that was not in accordance with Rule 9(1)(a) or (b) of the Rules of 2011, the Company contends that it was not in a position to specifically deal with such alleged violation. It has stated that it has complied with the requirements of Rule 9(1) and Chapter V of the Rules of 1971 in that regard. Thus in the absence of any specific details of the nature of violation with regard to various declarations that are required to be made under the Rules of 2011, a general violation as indicated in the memorandum dated 15.07.2016 cannot be sustained. There are various declarations required to be given under Rules 6 and 10 to 17 but the memorandum does not give any details of breach with regard to a particular declaration. Thus while holding that the third violation in the memorandum is liable to be set aside for want of necessary particulars, the Inspector of Legal Metrology is at liberty to furnish the details of any violation of the provisions of Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 2011 by specifying as to which declaration is not made in accordance with that Rule.

20. In the light of aforesaid discussion, it is held that insofar as the first violation in the memorandum dated 15.07.2016 is concerned, the same shall be considered only in respect of declaration of MRP in the context of the size of numerals is concerned. There is no violation with regard to size of numerals indicating the net quantity in view of provisions of Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 2011 as it stood on the date of the memorandum. As regards the second violation, it is held that since the declaration of net quantity is required to be made under Rule 19(1)(v) read with Rule 19(3) to 19(7) of the Rules of 1971 alongwith various other declarations in the manner and in the space indicated which is a specific provision pertaining to insecticides, the same would prevail over the general requirements specified in Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2011. The memorandum dated 15.07.2016 shall not operate as regards the second violation. Insofar as the third violation is concerned, the same not being specifically indicated in the memorandum dated 15.07.2016, the Inspector of Legal Metrology is at liberty to indicate any specific violation of various declarations not being in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules of 2011. To that extent, the third violation stated in the memorandum dated 15.07.2016 shall not operate with liberty to the Inspector of Legal Metrology to issue a fresh memorandum giving details of violations as found in that regard, if so advised.

21. The writ petition is thus partly allowed in aforesaid terms. Rule accordingly with no order as to costs.