ORDER A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. Since the issue in all these petitions relates to the very same circulars which have been relied on by the parties herein, the petitions are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of narration of facts, the facts as pleaded in W.P. Nos. 2338 and 2339 of 2011 is referred. 2. The petitioners claim that they are holders of licence to repair weights, measures and weighing instruments etc. issued by the first respondent. In that regard, the provisions contained in the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 is referred to. On the advent of Electrical and Electronics weighing machines, an additional requirement was provided for the purpose of repairing such machines. In this regard, since a skilled worker certificate was required under the earlier notification dated 1-3-2010, the petitioners who did not possess such qualification were at a disadvantage for the purpose of renewal of their licences for the said purpose. Taking note of this difficulty, the respondent issued the circular dated 13-8-2010 wherein certain benefit was provided even in respect of such licensees to enable them to acquire training from the Government Tool Room and Training Centre (for short, "GT and TC"). In that view, the petitioners herein underwent the said course and obtained certificates from the GT and TC. In that circumstance, when the petitioners sought for grant of licence in that regard the petitioners were intimated that their request cannot be considered in view of the subsequent circular dated 30-8-2010. Since the request of the petitioners for grant of licence to repair Electrical and Electronic weighing machines are denied on that basis, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. The official respondent has filed the objection statement. The action in that regard is sought to be justified. It is contended that as per the circular dated 1-3-2010 (Annexure-R4 to the objection statement), the requirement is not satisfied by the petitioners. It is the contention of the respondents that the circular dated 1-3-2010 provides for the education qualification as well as ITI training certificate. Insofar as the concession granted by the notification dated 13-8-2010, it is the case of the respondents that such benefit has been withdrawn by the subsequent circular dated 30-8-2010 and the petitioners cannot seek for any relief in the instant petitions. 4. Insofar as the concession granted by the notification dated 13-8-2010, it is the case of the respondents that such benefit has been withdrawn by the subsequent circular dated 30-8-2010 and the petitioners cannot seek for any relief in the instant petitions. 4. By the additional objection statement, it is further contended that the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 has come into force and Section 53 provides that the State Government is required to frame Rules in consultation with the Central Government and therefore the relief, if any, granted by the first respondent earlier would not be available to the petitioners and therefore the action of the respondents in denying grant of licence to the petitioners is justified. It is therefore contended that the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 5. Having noticed the rival contentions, what is to be referred at the outset is that the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 has come into force with effect from 1-4-2011. If this aspect is borne in mind the claim as made by the petitioners based on the circulars relied upon during the earlier period requires to be noticed and analysed by this Court before coming to a conclusion on this aspect of the matter. There is no dispute to the fact that the grant of licence was regulated by the circular dated 1-3-2010. Insofar as the licence to be granted for repair of Electrical and Electronic weighing machines and the work therein being treated as skilled and the requirement provided under the circular dated 1-3-2010 as is evident from the said circular cannot be disputed. 6. Keeping this accepted position in view, the right as claimed by the petitioners requires to be noticed. In this regard, the circular dated 13-8-2010 under which the petitioners' seek to take benefit would in fact clarify this aspect of the matter in itself. The said circular was issued by the respondents so as to keep in view the interest of the licensees who had the licence and had undertaken the work for nearly 20 to 30 years and would be rendered without employment, if new requirement is imposed on them on the advent of the Electrical and Electronic weighing machines. The said circular was issued by the respondents so as to keep in view the interest of the licensees who had the licence and had undertaken the work for nearly 20 to 30 years and would be rendered without employment, if new requirement is imposed on them on the advent of the Electrical and Electronic weighing machines. A perusal of the contents of the circular dated 13-8-2010 would indicate that after application of mind on this aspect of the matter, a decision was taken that the licensees who hold the licence for repairing the weighing machines other than Electrical and Electronic equipments were required to undergo a course under GT and TC. It is in that context, the petitioners have undergone a course in repair and maintenance of Electrical and Electronic weighing equipments in the GT and TC, Bangalore. The certificates as issued to the petitioners are produced along with the petitions and for instance in the lead case they are available at Annexures-F and Fl. Pursuant to the certificates being granted in their favour they have applied and sought for grant of licence in their favour. It is in response to that request the respondents have referred to the circular dated 30-8-2010 whereunder the earlier circular dated 13-8-2010 has been withdrawn. 7. Insofar as the sustainability of the said circular, at the outset since the circular dated 1-3-2010 prescribes the particular qualification, regarding which concession was granted and subsequently since the respondents have arrived at a decision that the concession granted by the circular dated 13-8-2010 is to be withdrawn, the circular as such cannot be found fault with and the same need not be quashed in the instant petition inasmuch as the same would be relevant and applicable in respect of other cases where any person seeking benefit subsequent to 30-8-2010 would not be able to claim the benefit granted under the circular dated 13-8-2010. 8. However, what requires consideration in the instant petitions is that insofar as the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 2338 and 2339 of 2011 and W.P. No. 46573 of 2011 they have completed the training for repair and maintenance of Electrical and Electronic weighing equipments between the period from 16-8-2010 to 25-8-2010. This would indicate that the benefit granted under the circular dated 13-8-2010 has been availed by them before the withdrawal of the benefit by the subsequent circular dated 30-8-2010. This would indicate that the benefit granted under the circular dated 13-8-2010 has been availed by them before the withdrawal of the benefit by the subsequent circular dated 30-8-2010. In such a situation, when they have altered their position by undergoing the course certainly the benefit cannot be denied to them. Though the learned Government Advocate would contend that the benefit granted under the circular dated 13-8-2010 had not been intimated to the GT and TC and therefore, the course conducted by them cannot be considered as a competent course, in my opinion, the said argument cannot be accepted. I am of the said conclusion for the reason that the course for repair and maintenance of Electrical and Electronic equipments conducted by the GT and TC is not as a benefit granted under the said circular but it is the course which was available in the GT and TC which benefit has been granted to the licensees and the licensees have availed that benefit by joining the said course therein and have subsequently undergone the training. In such a situation when they have acquired the said qualification within the period before which the said benefit was withdrawn the benefit in any event cannot be denied to them. 9. Having arrived at the above conclusion what is also necessary to be considered herein is that the petitioner in W.P. No. 46557 of 2011 has undergone the same course of repair and maintenance of Electrical and Electronic weighing equipments in GT and TC between the period 30-8-2010 to 8-9-2010. As noticed the benefit granted earlier was withdrawn by the circular dated 30-8-2010. Further, I have also indicated above that since the said course has been undergone by the licensees within the period when the benefit was available under the circular, the benefit available under the scheme has to be granted. The question therefore is whether the petitioner in W.P. No. 46577 of 2011 also should be granted the similar benefit. In a normal course in view of the earlier decision the petitioner herein would not have been entitled to the said benefit. The question therefore is whether the petitioner in W.P. No. 46577 of 2011 also should be granted the similar benefit. In a normal course in view of the earlier decision the petitioner herein would not have been entitled to the said benefit. However, what is to be taken as a distinguishing feature in the instant case is that at the first instance when the licence in favour of the said petitioner was not granted in view of the requirement under the circular dated 1-3-2010 the petitioner was before this Court in W.P. No. 17051 of 2010. During the pendency of the said petition since the circular dated 13-8-2010 was issued whereby the benefit had been granted to the subsisting licensees to acquire the said qualification from GT and TC, that aspect was brought to the notice of this Court and the writ petition was disposed of in that view on 8-7-2011. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner has joined the course and acquired the said qualification. In such a situation, when this Court had granted the liberty and the petitioner had thereafter joined the course and acquired the qualification the petitioner in W.P. No. 46577 of 2011 also should be granted the same benefit as granted to the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 2338 and 2339 of 2011 and W.P. No. 46573 of 2011. 10. Therefore, keeping all these aspects in view, though I see no reason to quash the circular dated 30-8-2010 since I have already indicated that in the instant case the certificate obtained by the petitioners from GT and TC should be considered as valid in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the respondents are directed to consider the said certificate and grant licence in favour of the petitioners for carrying out repair and maintenance of Electrical and Electronic weighing machines also. It is made clear that the benefit to the petitioners herein has been granted under the facts and circumstances which have been narrated herein and the said benefit in any event would not be available to any other persons who have completed the similar course subsequent to the circular dated 30-8-2010 or who have not approached this Court seeking to avail the remedies within time as done by the petitioners herein. In terms of the above direction, these petitions stand disposed of.