Judgment :- K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are running a textile showroom in Ernakulam. They made renovation of that showroom and made an advertisement in Mathrubhumi daily dated 15.2.2000 regarding the re-opening of the showroom. In the said advertisement, it is stated that the plinth area of the showroom has been increased from 3600 sq,ft. to 6200 sq.ft On coming across Exhibit-P1, the second respondent issued Exhibit P2 notice to the petitioners stating that the measurement regarding the area of the showroom has not been expressed in standard unit and therefore, the same is in violation of the provisions in S.11 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985. They were called upon to show cause why they should not be prosecuted. The ­petitioners submitted Exhibit P3 objection. The said objection was considered and rejected by the second respondent by Exhibit P5 decision dated 29.6.2004. It was followed by Exhibit P6 order, issued by the first respondent, granting sanction for prosecuting the petitioners for violation of the provisions in S.11 of the Act. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Exhibits P5 and P6. According to the petitioners. S.11 covers only goods sold and services rendered. The prescription of the area of a showroom in non-standard unit will not be hit by S.11 of the Act. So, the petitioners seek to quash Exhibits P5 and P6. 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, supporting the impugned orders. They have also pointed out that pursuant to Exhibit P6, Exhibit R2 (a) complaint has been filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Perumbavoor. The said complaint has been submitted before the interim order passed by this Court was communicated. According to the respondents, the area of the showroom should have been expressed in square metres, instead of square feet. So, the same is an offence under S.11 (c) of the Act, it is submitted. 3. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. 4. S.11 of the Act reads as follows: 11. Prohibition of quotations, etc. otherwise than in terms of standard weight or measure. So, the same is an offence under S.11 (c) of the Act, it is submitted. 3. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. 4. S.11 of the Act reads as follows: 11. Prohibition of quotations, etc. otherwise than in terms of standard weight or measure. Except where he is permitted under the Standards Act so to do, no personal shall, in relation to any goods or things which are sold, transferred, distributed or delivered, or any service rendered­- (a) quote, or make announcement of, whether by word of mouth or otherwise, any price or charge, or (b) issue or exhibit any price list, invoice, cash memo or other document, or; (c) mention any weight or measure in any advertisement poster or other document, or (d) indicate the weight, measure or number of the net contents of any package on the package itself or on any label, carton or other thing, or (e) express, in relation to any transaction, industrial production or protection, any quantity or dimension; otherwise than in accordance with the standard weight or measure.” The respondents support their action, relying on sub-s.(c) of S.11. The said sub-section has to be interpreted in the light of the scheme of the Act. “The mention of any weight or measure in any advertisement poster or other document” should be concerning some goods or service. The showroom is not a good offered for sale or a service rendered for a consideration. The restrictions in S.11 of the Act can apply only to ‘goods, and services. Though various services are rendered from the showroom, the showroom cannot be equated to any service. The stand taken by the respondents is ex facie unsustainable. Accordingly, Exhibits P5 and P6 are quashed. It is also declared that Exhibit R2(a) complaint filed against the petitioners before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Perumbavoor is also not maintainable. Accordingly, it is also quashed. The Writ Petition is allowed as above.