A. N. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against an order dated 17/07/1981 passed by the Controller, Weights and Measures, U. P. Lucknow, in an appeal filed by the petitioner against the decision of the Senior Inspector of the said Department dated 20-1-1980. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner states that this petition is confined to the decision of the Controller on the third issue formulated by him in the impugned order. The issue was; "whether the marking on Rubber bales was as per provisions of packaged Commodities Rule, 1977" (the correct description of which is the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 ). The finding recorded by the Controller on this issue runs as follows:-"as regards issue No. 3, in case you want to seek exemption under Rule 34 of the packaged commodities Rules, 1977, you should unambiguously indicate on the packages of Rubber bales the words "not for sale, packed specially for exclusive use as Raw Material within the factory. " ( 3 ) THE petitioner is a Public Ltd. Company. It has a factory at Fatehgarh (West), District Bareilly, in which it manufactures Synthetics Raw Rubber and other chemicals from industrial alcohol. The assertion is that the commodity manufactured by the petitioner is used as raw material in the manufacture of certain rubber products such as tyres etc. It is further asserted that the petitioner does not sell raw rubber in pre-packs or packages. In short, the case is that the raw material manufactured by it is not sold as a pre-packed commodity. ( 4 ) THE trouble for the petitioner started with the issue of notice by the Senior Inspector, Weights and Measures, in which it was asserted that the petitioner was bound to have itself registered under the aforesaid Rules of 1977 and inasmuch as, it had taken no steps for such registration, it was liable to be proceeded against for the breach of Rules 35 and 36. The notice further states that the petitioner should comply with the requirement of the aforesaid Rules within fifteen days failing which appropriate legal action would be taken against it. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by this notice/decision of the Senior Inspector, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 19 (a) of the U. P. Weights and Measures Act, 1959. The notice further states that the petitioner should comply with the requirement of the aforesaid Rules within fifteen days failing which appropriate legal action would be taken against it. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by this notice/decision of the Senior Inspector, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 19 (a) of the U. P. Weights and Measures Act, 1959. Shortly, the case set up in the memorandum of appeal was that the raw material being manufactured by the petitioner is sold by weight and not in pre-packed condition and consequently, the 1977 Rules did not apply to the petitioners. It is further stated in the memorandum of appeal that the raw rubber is packed by the petitioner merely for safety during transit and to avoid contamination during storage. In fact the same are being sold by weight and not in pre-packs as defined in the Rules. ( 6 ) IN appeal the Controller formulated three issues. We are, however, not concerned with the findings on the first two issues. We are informed by the learned counsel that these issues formed the subject-matter of another writ petition filed by the petitioner, which has since been allowed. ( 7 ) COMING to the third issue quoted at the beginning of the judgment, it seems to us that the Controller has made no serious endeavour to examine the main controversy which arose for consideration before him. The principal question which fell for determination before the Controller was; whether the petitioner was selling raw material used by it is prepacked condition. ( 8 ) THE term "pre-packed commodity" is defined in 1977 Rules to mean "a commodity which without the purchaser being present, is placed in a package of whatever nature, so that the quantity of the product contained therein has a pre-determined value and such value cannot be altered without the package or its lid or cap, as the case may be, being opened or undergoing a perceptible modification, and the expression "package", wherever it occurs, shall be construed as a package containing a pre-packed commodity. " ( 9 ) IF the answer to the above issue is in the negative, that is, it is found that the petitioner is not selling a pre-packed commodity, it is apparent that Rules 35 and 36 of the aforesaid Rules of 1977, shall have no application to the petitioners case. " ( 9 ) IF the answer to the above issue is in the negative, that is, it is found that the petitioner is not selling a pre-packed commodity, it is apparent that Rules 35 and 36 of the aforesaid Rules of 1977, shall have no application to the petitioners case. If on the other hand, this issue is answered against the petitioner, the further question that will arise would be whether the petitioner is entitled to exemption under Rule 34 of the 1977 Rules. This will depend on whether the petitioner satisfies the authorities that it has complied with the requirement laid down in Rule 34. ( 10 ) RULE 34 requires that marking on the package in which the commodity is sold, must unambiguously indicate that it has been especially packed for the exclusive use of any industry as a raw material or for the purpose of servicing any industry, mine or quarry. In the impugned order, the Controller has observed that the petitioner would be entitled to exemption only if the package in which the raw material is contained, indicates unambiguously that the same is not for sale or that it is packed for specific use as raw material within the factory. It will be seen that the Controller requires the petitioner to mention on the package something which even Rule 34 (a) does not provide. The finding of the Controller on the third issue is therefore liable to be quashed on this ground alone. ( 11 ) OUR conclusions therefore are that the Controller must rehear the appeal and determine the following issues:- (i) Whether the petitioner is manufacturing and selling a pre-packed commodity within the meaning of the 1977 Rules? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to exemption under Rule 34. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 17/07/1981, passed by the Controller (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) in so far as its decision on the third issue is concerned, is quashed. The Controller shall now dispose of the petitioners appeal afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made in this judgment. He shall dispose of the appeal within a period of two months from the date on which a certified copy of this order is submitted before him. Needless to add that before deciding the appeal, the Controller shall give a hearing to the petitioner. He shall dispose of the appeal within a period of two months from the date on which a certified copy of this order is submitted before him. Needless to add that before deciding the appeal, the Controller shall give a hearing to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .