M. P. THAKKAR, J. ( 1 ) BELIEVE it or not it is true. Even when it has not become possible to statutorily fix the minimum wages of workers in all spheres or to ensure obeisance thereto where such fixation has been made maximum (and not minimum) wages have been fixed for petty self-employed workers engaged in repairs of weights and measures. And it is in this context that those engaged in this repairing work have organized themselves into a registered Union under the Trade Unions Act 1976 and have instituted the present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia challenging the fixation of maximum charges made by the Controller of Weights and Measures appointed under the Bombay Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act 1958 in purported exercise of powers conferred by the Bombay Weights and Measures (Enforcement) (Gujarat Amendment) Rules of 1978 the validity of which has also been questioned. The said rules in so far as relevant read thus:- (2 ). In the Bombay Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules 1978 in Schedule XI in Form A under the heading Conditions of Licence after condition No. 1 the following condition shall be inserted namely;1 The persons holding licence for repairing weights and measures shall not charge repairing charges more than the charges fixed by the Controller of Weights and Measures from time to time taking into consideration labour charges required to be paid the cost of material used and establishment charges and such other charges required to be incurred by the licencee. By these rules a condition is sought to be introduced in Form A which is a part of Schedule XI to the Bombay Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules 1958 The said form (Form A) prior to the amendment read as under:-SCHEDULE XILICENSING FORMSFORM `aoffice OP THE CONTROLLER OF WEIGHTS and MEASURES. . . Licence to manufacture/repair weights measures weighing instruments or measuring instruments. Licence No. . . . . ( 2 ) BY virtue of the aforesaid Rules a new condition viz. condition 1 (A) has been introduced in the existing form. . . Licence to manufacture/repair weights measures weighing instruments or measuring instruments. Licence No. . . . . ( 2 ) BY virtue of the aforesaid Rules a new condition viz. condition 1 (A) has been introduced in the existing form. It is in the following terms:-1 The persons holding licence for repairing weights and Measures shall not charge repairing charges more than the charges fixed by the Controller of Weights and Measures from time to time taking into consideration labour charges required to be paid the cost of material used and establishment charges and such other charges required to be incurred by the licencee. These rules have been framed by the State Govt. in exercise of powers under sec. 46 (2) (xii) of the aforesaid Act. Sec. 46 in so far as material reads as under:- 46 The State Govt. may by notification in the Official Gazette make rules to carry out the purpose of this Act. (2 ). In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters namely:- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (xii) the form and manner in which and the conditions subject to which. licences may be granted to persons for manufacture repair or sale of commercial weights and measures and weighing and measuring instruments under sec. 13 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (5) All rules made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Legislature as soon as may be after they are made and shall be subject to such modifications as the State Legislature may make during the session in which they are so laid or the session immediately following it appears that pursuant to the power conferred by the aforesaid rules as amended by the Gujarat Amendment the Controller of Weights and Measures has issued a Schedule of rates which can be charged as per Annexure B to the petition. It is not necessary to refer to the entire Schedule but in order to illustrate the point the Schedule in so far as the rates of the maximum repairing fees which can be charged for weights and measures as per Schedule B may be reproduced :- It will be seen that for weights of 20 grams made of brass the maximum repairing charge has been prescribed at Re. 0. 0. 25. So also for repairing weights made of brass weighing 50 grams to 500 grams the maximum repairing charge is Re. 0. 25. It is common ground that this will include the cost of the lead the labour charges and all incidental charges for repairing the weights. The petitioners feel aggrieved because the maximum charges which have been prescribed do not take into account the variations in the price of lead as also the variations in the cost of living index and the general rise in prices and in labour charges. The reason why the petitioners object to the prescribing of maximum rates in such fashion is obvious. They can be required to pay any price for the lead they purchase. There is no ceiling on the price of lead. So also there is no ceiling on the price of consumer goods which they require to maintain themselves. Even so the ceiling is prescribed in regard to the rates that they can charge for repairing the weights. And these rates ex-facie are extremely low. As pointed out earlier the weights and measures ranging from 20 grams to 500 grams are required to be repaired for a maximum repairing charge of Re. 0. 25 per piece including the cost of lead irrespective of the quantity of the lead required and irrespective of the work involved. The petitioners have challenged the rates fixed by the Controller as per the Schedule as also the amended rule which introduces condition 1 in the licence on numerous grounds. It is not necessary to advert to all these grounds of challenge for the matter is capable of being disposed of on two short grounds viz. :-1 Neither the Act nor the Rules empower the Controller of Weights and Measures to fix the rates for repairing charges as per Schedule B. The fixation made by him is thus without authority of law. 2 The amended rule has not been placed before each House of the Legislature as enjoyed by sub-sec. (5) of sec. 45 and there fore is devoid of legal force. ( 3 ) WE propose to deal with the first submission at this juncture. The impugned Schedule of rates as per Annexure `b has been notified under the signature of Controller of Weights and Measures. In other words the maximum rates have been determined by the Controller of Weights and Measures. 45 and there fore is devoid of legal force. ( 3 ) WE propose to deal with the first submission at this juncture. The impugned Schedule of rates as per Annexure `b has been notified under the signature of Controller of Weights and Measures. In other words the maximum rates have been determined by the Controller of Weights and Measures. What is the source on the authority of the Controller of Weights and Measures to fix the maximum rates for repealing charges ? The rules themselves do not empower the Controller of Weights and Measures to do so. The Gujarat Amendment made in the Rules in 1978 also does not empower the Controller of Weights and Measures to fix the maximum rates for repairing charges. That the rules existing before the Gujarat Amendment do not empower `51 Controller of Weights and Measures is not disputed. Let us see what has been achieved by the Gujarat Amendment. It reads as under:- now THEREFORE in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (xi) of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 46 of the Bombay Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act 1958 (Bom. No. LXIX of 1958) the Government of Gujarat hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Bombay Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules. namely; (1 ). These rules may be called the Bombay Weights and Measures (Enforcement) (Gujarat Amendment) Rules 1978 (2 ). In the Bombay Weights and Measure (Enforcement)Rules 1958 in Schedule XI in Form A under the heading Condition of licence after Condition no. 1 the following condition shall be inserted namely 1a The persons holding licence for repairing Weights and Measures shall not charge repairing charges more than the charges fixed by the Controller of Weights and Measures from time to time taking into consideration labour charges required to be paid the cost of material used and establishment charges and such other charges required to be incurred by the licencee. It will be seen that what has been done is merely to amend Form A forming a part of Schedule at in regard to the conditions of licence. It does not empower the Controller of Weights and Measures tn fix the maximum rates. It will be seen that what has been done is merely to amend Form A forming a part of Schedule at in regard to the conditions of licence. It does not empower the Controller of Weights and Measures tn fix the maximum rates. Assuming that the State Government can do so by way of amendment of the rules it cannot be said that by introducing a new condition in the licence the rule itself is amended By merely amending the form of the licence no rule comes into existence which empowers the Controller of Weights and Measures to prescribe the maximum rates for repairing of weights and measures. It is too obvious to need any further discussion. The resultant position is that in point of fact there does not exist a rule authorising fixation of the maximum rates of weights and measures. When we refer to rule what we have in mind is a rule framed by the State Government under the rule making authority conferred by sec. 46 of the Act. There is no such rule in existence. What is in existence is merely a condition incorporated in a licence which says that the charges in excess of the charges fixed by Controller of Weights and Measures cannot be levied. But then the Controller of Weights and Measures himself has no legal authority to fix the maximum rates for repairs. Neither the Act nor the rules confer any authority on him to do so. The learned Assistant Govt. Pleader is unable to show the source of his authority. The source has to be located either in the Act or in the rules. And there is no such authority conferred on the Controller by the Act or the rules. We may incidentally mention that learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that even the State Government cannot do so by reason of the fact that the Act does not envisage fixation of rates for repairs of weights and measures and the rules cannot go beyond the Act. It has also been contended that the State Government cannot do so even if under the Act such rates can be prescribed unless the Legislature has indicated the guidelines for such fixation. In the present case neither the Act nor the rules provide for fixation of maximum rates for weights and measures. It has also been contended that the State Government cannot do so even if under the Act such rates can be prescribed unless the Legislature has indicated the guidelines for such fixation. In the present case neither the Act nor the rules provide for fixation of maximum rates for weights and measures. It is also a moot question whether the State Government could delegate these powers to fix the rates assuming that it had the competence to do so by virtue of she rule making power conferred by sec. 46. We need not examine this ramification of the matter in view of the fact that the petitioners are entitled to succeed on the first point. We may also say that so far as the second submission is concerned the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader is obliged to concede that the rules as amended by the State of Gujarat in 1978 have not been placed before the Legislature. Sub-sec. (5) of sec. 46 in terms provides that all rules made under the rule making power conferred by sec. 46 shall be laid before each House of the Legislature and the State Legislature may during the session in which they are so laid affirm the same subject to such modifications as may be considered appropriate. The statutory power of the legislature to modify the rules cannot be taken away by the State Government. Admittedly the Rules have not been placed before the State Legislature. Under the circumstances the rules have not legally come into force. It follows that condition 1 (A) sought to be incorporated in the licence has also not legally come into force. On this ground also the petitioners are entitled to succeed without anything more. ( 4 ) THE petition is allowed. The impugned schedule of rates as per Annexure B fixing the maximum rates for the repairs of weights and measures is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There will be no order regarding costs. Petition allowed. .