Judgment :- The writ petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from refusing to put the vehicle into operation (Tank Truck into the operation) for the purpose of loading and unloading of their products calibrated by the licenced Calibrators under the Provisions of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act 1985. 2. Heard Mr.D.Veeramani, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Mrs.Meera Guptha, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner has been issued licence by the Controller of Weights and Measures, Chennai valid up to 31st December 1998 in terms of Rule 23 of Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act. 1985. The petitioner has also secured a licencee from the Deputy Inspector of Labour Madurai. The petitioner is a licenced Calibrator to deal with the work of calibration of tanker lorry immaterial of the purpose for which the vehicles are to be used. The petitioner has to adopt certain safety measures as per the prescribed standards and directions as well as guidelines. The petitioner and others similarly placed licenced calibrators carried out calibration with precision and meticuloursly. The petitioner claims that he has calibrated 72 tanker trucks engaged by oil companies for transportation of Petroleum Products. 4. The second respondent issued a circular letter whereby the second respondent has stated that tank tanker trucks calibrated in in IOC premises alone should be used and no other. Such a direction was kept with top secrecy, but the petitioner has secured a copy. 5. The instructions/Circular reads thus:- "Calibration of TTs: It is understood that few locations are calibrating the TTs which are on contract through outside agencies in their premises. While we agree, some locations are having constraints to have calibration facility with our locations, it should be ensured that calibration done at OMC premises and not at any outside agencies premises. The consequent result of calibrating the TTs of outside agencies in their premises are listed hereunder: (a) During calibration only all safety fittings can be verified. Local Meteorological Inspector may not be conversant with safety fittings like DPW/Spark arrester outside. Only the persons who are handling petroleum products would be aware of the necessity of safety fittings. (b) After calibration, the quantity accuracy verification will not be possible for the trucks which are loaded as per dip road at the loading locations. Local Meteorological Inspector may not be conversant with safety fittings like DPW/Spark arrester outside. Only the persons who are handling petroleum products would be aware of the necessity of safety fittings. (b) After calibration, the quantity accuracy verification will not be possible for the trucks which are loaded as per dip road at the loading locations. (c.) Internal fittings should be verified as per OISD 167 specifications before calibration. There is no recording in the chart on this verification. (d) Any error that occurs due to calibration of TTs at outside agencies will play a vital role in stock loss at either loading or receiving locations. Hence the locations are hereby advised not to calibrate the trucks at outside agencies premises. A line in confirmation in this regard is essential." 6. It is claimed by the petitioner that on coming to know of the same, the Controller of Legal Meteorology, Chennai objected to such arbitrary instructions being issued by the respondent and such circular is illegal and not in accordance with the statutory rules. 7. On 16.12.1998 the Managers at Madurai-Vilangudi Depots displayed a notice and according to the said notice calibration should be done only with the IOC Calibration Centres and if calibration is done by private Calibrators such vehicles shall not be permitted to ply for the purpose of loading and unloading of IOC Petroleum Products. Challenging the said direction/instruction or notice, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner relies on the provisions of the Weights and Measures Act as well as the Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules framed thereunder. 8. It is contended that the direction issued by the second respondent that calibration should be done only in their depots is illegal, violative of statutory rule, it offends Art.19(1)(g) and it is arbitrary. 9. Per contra, the respondents 1 and 2 filed a counter through the Deputy General Manager, the second respondent, denying the entire case of the petitioner and the averments set out in the affidavit, it is stated that the internal communication or circular is applicable for tanker trucks which are in contract with the respondents 1 and 2 and the said Guidelines/Circular is mainly for the locations which do not have the calibration facility and not or locations where calibration facilities are available. It is stated that in the three depots of Madurai Divisional Office namely Tirunelveli, Trichy and Vilangudi, the respondents have their own facility for calibrating their own/contract tanker trucks. The guidelines/Circular has been issued to ensure that all safety fittings are verified at the time of calibration and the quantity of accuracy determined so as to ensure loss either loading or receiving locations and avoid delay in the operations. 10. As regards para 5 of the affidavit, the respondents state that at Narimanam M/s.IBP & Co., is only filling the Tanker Trucks of all Oil Companies and they should provide the calibrating facility. M/s.IBP has already installed a facility for calibrating tanker trucks. As there was some delay, the tanker trucks based at Narimanam are being calibrated in private party's premises at Madurai. The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas constituted a Committee and the Committee had given certain design and safety guidelines for Petroleum Tanker Trucks and it is termed as OISD-RP-167 i.e., OIL INDIA SAFETY DIRECTORATE RP 167. 11. It is further stated that the respondents should verify the design of the petroleum trucks/tankers as well as safety fittings at two instances namely (i) at the time of fabricating the tank and installing the safety fittings and (ii) at the time of calibrating/recalibrating the Tanker Trucks. The tankers are being calibrated and recalibrated once in a year and they are calibrated in the respondents oil company premises which commands certain advantages such as Oil company representative who is conversant with OISD 167 Norms can check for the standard safety fittings in the tanker trucks, otherwise, the tanker trucks have to be checked at the premises of Oil Company which results in additional time loss for the Tanker truck as well as for Oil Company. Therefore it was decided to calibrate or recalibrate the tanker trucks in the premises of the respondent Oil Company Depots/Terminal. Even if the tanker trucks are calibrated at the private party's premises it has to meet the standards of correctness of its design and its standard fittings as and when required by the Oil Company depots/terminals. Madurai Vilangudi depot has calibration facility and it is issued by Legal Meteorological department to calibrate the respondents own/contract tanker trucks right from its installation. The respondents do not insist to calibrate tanker trucks in Vilangudi depot which are not under contract with the IOC. 12. Madurai Vilangudi depot has calibration facility and it is issued by Legal Meteorological department to calibrate the respondents own/contract tanker trucks right from its installation. The respondents do not insist to calibrate tanker trucks in Vilangudi depot which are not under contract with the IOC. 12. The action of the respondent in no way suffers with illegality, nor violative of the provisions of law, nor it infringes fundamental rights guaranteed by The Constitution. The guidelines/Circular has been issued to ensure safety norms are being complied with in accordance with IOSD 167 Norm and the correctness of design and standard fittings are maintained which is very important as the Petroleum Products are by very nature is inflammable. The various contentions advanced by the petitioner are devoid of merits and untenable both in law and on facts. The petitioner might have been granted license and might be following the procedure in calibration according to the standards prescribed. The respondents have not prevented any tanker truck owners from getting calibrated in private party's premises of their choice. The respondents have only advised the tanker trucks under their contract to get calibration with oil companies so that the safety fittings can be checked by the oil company's representatives to satisfy whether they are in line with OISD 167 Norms. 13. The internal circular was issued to ensure complete implementation of the statutory requirements for calibration and to test the safety fittings. The apprehension of the petitioner is unfounded. The contention that the petitioner will suffer business loss is not correct and assuming to be so, it is immaterial so far as the respondents are concerned. The petitioner is a calibrator has his own clients and there is no restriction with respect to other tankers being calibrated by the petitioner. The internal circular issued by the respondents cannot be questioned and at any rate it is the respondents own arrangement so far as the respondents' trucks are concerned or the contract trucks in respect of which contract has been entered with the respondents. 14. The respondents also do have calibration facilities and they are licensed by Legal Meteorological Department and it is not as if the respondents are not licensed to calibrate. The various contentions advanced by the petitioner are devoid of merits and it is untenable in law. 15. 14. The respondents also do have calibration facilities and they are licensed by Legal Meteorological Department and it is not as if the respondents are not licensed to calibrate. The various contentions advanced by the petitioner are devoid of merits and it is untenable in law. 15. The points that arise for consideration are:- (a) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief of mandamus as prayed for forbearing the respondents from refusing to put the vehicles into operation for the purpose of loading and unloading of their products calibrated by the petitioner? (b) Whether the internal circular issued by the respondents is illegal, unconstitutional, violative of petitioner's legal rights and liable to be interfered? 16. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a licensed calibrator and he is carrying on the same. The respondents have made their own arrangements for calibration of tanker trucks in their depots as they on principle decided to ensure standards in respect of their own tanker trucks/contract trucks. According to the respondents they have also secured license to calibrate and by their own arrangements in the respective depots they are in a position to maintain the standards besides it enables them to avoid delay in filling up or clearance of the tanker trucks. The respondents are bound to implement the standards/specifications prescribed by the Ministry of Petroleum and Oil and Natural Gas and it is only an internal arrangement in respect of the respondents own tanker trucks or other trucks which are placed under the disposal of the respondents under a contract for transportation of petroleum products. Therefore it is contended that the internal circular is well within the authority of the respondents as it is the respondents who have to run their own business according to the standards and specifications and the petitioner cannot dictate terms. 17. It is true that the petitioner is a licensed calibrator. That does not mean that he has a right to calibrate every tanker trucks in the State or operating within a specified area or the place where he has located his establishment to calibrate. All that the petitioner has been licensed is a license to calibrate which enables him to calibrate if a tanker truck owner approaches him for calibration. That does not mean that he has a right to calibrate every tanker trucks in the State or operating within a specified area or the place where he has located his establishment to calibrate. All that the petitioner has been licensed is a license to calibrate which enables him to calibrate if a tanker truck owner approaches him for calibration. There is no obligation on the part of the respondent to send their tanker trucks to the petitioner for calibration nor a right of monopoly has been conferred on the petitioner, nor the respondent has entered an agreement with the petitioner for any stipulated period or area or duration for calibration of their own tanker trucks or the tanker trucks engaged by them on contract. 18. There is no obligation cast on the respondents that they should get the tanker trucks calibrated by the petitioner alone by virtue of the fact that he is a licensed calibrator. Equally, there is no restriction for respondents to have their own arrangements for calibration of tanker trucks and also strictly implement the standards prescribed by the Ministry of Petroleum and Oil and Natural Gas. The respondents have taken a policy decision to calibrate the tanker trucks which are being engaged by the respondents or their own trucks to ensure not only safety but also with a view to avoid delay. 19. Mere granting of license to the petitioner to calibrate cannot be a ground to compel the respondents to send their lorries/tankers or trucks owned by the contractors to the petitioner, nor the petitioner could insist that all the tanker trucks should be calibrated by him alone. There is no violation of the petitioenr's fundamental rights by the internal circular issued by the respondents. It is a safety measure which the respondents in their own interest and in the interest of the public have introduced and they seek to enforce strictly. 20. Merely because the petitioner is a licensed calibrator neither the respondents owe a duty nor the respondents are bound to calibrate their tanker trucks only by the petitioner. It is a safety measure which the respondents in their own interest and in the interest of the public have introduced and they seek to enforce strictly. 20. Merely because the petitioner is a licensed calibrator neither the respondents owe a duty nor the respondents are bound to calibrate their tanker trucks only by the petitioner. There could be any number of licensed calibrators in a given area or in the State and it is for them to canvass their business of calibration and it is for the tanker owners to select a licensed calibrator of their choice and the calibrators cannot compel either the tanker owners or the oil companies that the tankers should be calibrated only by the petitioner or one or more of the licensed calibrator or that the respondents shall not have their own calibration arrangement for their vehicles. 21. Though the counsel for the petitioner contended that the predominance business of the respondents 1 and 2 is to explore process and distribute petroleum products, it does not mean that the respondents cannot have their own arrangement in respect of tanker trucks being used by them for transportation of the petroleum products as it is also part of their business to maintain standards and specifications as well as safety. 22. As already pointed out there is neither a duty nor an obligation cast on the respondents, nor the petitioner has been conferred with any privilege or contact or arrangement that calibration should be done by him exclusively or by one or more of the other licensed private calibrator. As already pointed out the calibration is being done by the respondents themselves in their respective depots for which they have also secured license from the concerned authorities. 23. In law, it is well open to the respondents to make their own arrangement and when the arrangement is in accordance with the statutory rule and when they hav also secured a valid license to calibrate the tanker trucks, the petitioner, a licensed calibrator cannot contend that the internal circular is violative of fundamental rights or it is violative of Weights and Measurements (Enforcement) Act or the Rules framed thereunder as the case may be. 24. In the circumstances, this court answers both the points against the writ petitioner and in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 and consequently the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.