Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 225 (KER)

R. Venkitaraman v. Union of India

2013-03-13

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

body2013
ORDER : The above writ petitions and Crl. M.Cs. are filed by the accused persons, who are being prosecuted on a complaint filed by the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Circle-1, Irinjalakuda. Imputing against them violation of Rule 6(1A) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, hereinafter referred to as the PC Rules and, thus, contravention of Section 39 of the Standard of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as Standards Act, petitioners are prosecuted for the offence under Section 63 of the above Act. 2. Cognizance taken of the offence imputed in the complaint and process issued, the case numbered as S.T. No. 6367 of 2010 now awaits enquiry before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda. 3. The accused persons, some of them joining together, and one of them separately, have filed the Crl. M.Cs. and writ petitions. Accused persons ranked 9 to 14 have filed Crl. M.C. No. 951 of 2011 and W.P. (C) No. 10917 of 2011, accused persons ranked 1 to 7, Crl. M.C. 1608 of 2011 and W.P. (C). No. 20384 of 2011 and accused No. 8, Crl. M.C. No. 1607 of 2011 and W.P. (C) No. 20387 of 2011. They have filed the Crl. M.Cs. to quash the complaint invoking the inherent powers of this Court contending that criminal proceedings initiated against them are an abuse of process of the Court. Writ petitions are filed challenging the constitutional validity of sub-rule (1A) of Rule 6 of the PC Rules contending that it is beyond the rule making power vested with the Central Government under Section 39 read with Section 83 of the Standards Act, and, for striking down that rule by a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction and also to quash the complaint filed against the writ petitioners imputing violation of that rule. 4. Though challenges raised in the Crl. M.Cs. and writ petitions stand on different footing, indisputably, criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners arraying them as accused on the complaint of the Inspector, Legal Metrology, imputing violation of rule 6(1A) of the PC Rules by them has given rise to both the proceedings before this Court. In the Crl. 4. Though challenges raised in the Crl. M.Cs. and writ petitions stand on different footing, indisputably, criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners arraying them as accused on the complaint of the Inspector, Legal Metrology, imputing violation of rule 6(1A) of the PC Rules by them has given rise to both the proceedings before this Court. In the Crl. M.Cs., prosecution proceedings launched against the petitioners/accused is impeached as an abuse of process of the Court setting forth a challenge that the newly added sub-rule, sub-rule (1A) to Rule 6 of the PC Rules cannot have application over intra-State sale of packaged goods if a true and correct interpretation is given to the words as in force immediately before the commencement of this Act in sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act 1985, for short, the Enforcement Act. In the writ petitions challenge raised is over the rule making power of the Central Government to incorporate sub-rule (1A) to Rule 6 of the PC Rules impeaching its competency and authority to do so. Striking down of sub-rule (1A) to Rule 6 of the PC Rules on the challenge as aforesaid and quashing of the complaint giving rise to prosecution of the writ petitioners is canvassed in the writ petitions invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Since the questions to be resolved in the Crl. M.Cs. and writ petitions primarily rest upon the interpretation to be placed over one or other provisions of Standards Act, the PC Rules and also the Enforcement Act, and the fulcrum on which the prosecution under the complaint rests on the alleged violation of a Rule under the PC Rules, all petitions were heard together. 6. I heard learned senior counsel Sri. Chacko George, who appeared for the petitioners in the Crl. M.Cs. and writ petitions, the learned Additional State Prosecutor Sri K. I. Abdul Rasheed, who appeared for the respondent/complainant and also Assistant Solicitor General Sri. P. Parameswaran Nair for Central Government. 7. Inspector of Legal Metrology, Circle-1, Irinjalakuda on 18-7-2008 conducted an inspection over the retail trade premises of M/s. Lan Mark Shops (I) Private Limited, Thalore, Thrichur. M.Cs. and writ petitions, the learned Additional State Prosecutor Sri K. I. Abdul Rasheed, who appeared for the respondent/complainant and also Assistant Solicitor General Sri. P. Parameswaran Nair for Central Government. 7. Inspector of Legal Metrology, Circle-1, Irinjalakuda on 18-7-2008 conducted an inspection over the retail trade premises of M/s. Lan Mark Shops (I) Private Limited, Thalore, Thrichur. On such inspection he seized two items of packages, three each in number, which were stored, displayed and exposed for sale without conforming to the PC Rules and the Standards Act. One among the two items of packages, relating to a product Voltage Stabilizer manufactured by a concern, namely, V-Guard Industries Limited is the subject-matter of the complaint. The packets, three in number, containing the product and printed V-Guard Voltage Stabilizer did not bear the statutory declaration regarding the name, address, telephone number and E-mail address of the person who can be or office which can be contacted, in case of consumer complaints, is the gist of the accusation to impute violation of PC Rules and provisions of the Standards Act, to prosecute the accused persons. Among the accused, accused No. 1 is the Managing Director and accused Nos. 2 to 7 are the Directors of M/s. Lan Mark Shops (I) Private Limited, the retail dealer of the aforesaid packages. Accused No. 8 is the Proprietor of M/s. V-Two Distributors, Thrissur, the distributor of the aforesaid packages. Accused No. 9 is the Managing Director and accused Nos. 10 to 14 are the Directors of M/s. V-Guard Industries, Kochi, the manufacturer of the aforesaid packages. After issuing show cause notice to the above persons, and explanation offered by them found to be not satisfactory, complaint was filed before the magistrate of competent jurisdiction to prosecute them. 8. Common challenge in all three Crl. M.Cs. against the prosecution of petitioners, the accused in the complaint case, is that the newly made sub-rule (1A) of Rule 6 of P.C. Rules, violation of which is the basis for prosecution, is inapplicable to the State of Kerala where Enforcement Act has been brought into force only with effect from 24-7-1992. 8. Common challenge in all three Crl. M.Cs. against the prosecution of petitioners, the accused in the complaint case, is that the newly made sub-rule (1A) of Rule 6 of P.C. Rules, violation of which is the basis for prosecution, is inapplicable to the State of Kerala where Enforcement Act has been brought into force only with effect from 24-7-1992. That challenge is built on the premise that Section 33 of the Enforcement Act which made applicable the provisions of Standards Act and the Rules thereunder to intra-State sale of packaged commodities sold or distributed, stipulates that provisions of the Standard Act applicable to inter-State sale or distribution of commodities in packaged form as in force at the time when the Act was extended to the State to intra-State sale or distribution alone can be applied to packaged commodities sold or distributed in the State. Sub-rule (1A) of Rule 6 of the Packaged Rules which was brought in by amendment and enforceable with effect from 13-1-2007 cannot have application to intra-State sale or distribution of a packaged commodity, according to petitioners, since provisions of the Standards Act and the Rules as in force when the Enforcement Act was made applicable, that alone, will be applicable. Subsequent amendments to the provisions of the Standards Act and Rules cannot apply to intra-State sale or distribution of packaged commodities, is the case canvassed giving emphasis to the clause as in force immediately before the commencement of this in sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Enforcement Act. When that be the challenge in the Crl. M.Cs. to assail the prosecution, in the writ petitions rule making power of the Central Government to include sub-rule (1A) of Rule-6 of the PC Rules is challenged contending that Section 39 read with Section 83 of the Standards Act does not empower the Central Government to make such a Rule. Section 39 of the Standards Act states what are the matters to be declared on the packaged commodity and as such any prescription by Rules with respect to such declaration should confine to the matters covered by that section, and that alone is the challenge. The manner in which the declarations to be made, that too with respect to the matters covered by Section 39 alone, can be prescribed under the Rules according to petitioners. The manner in which the declarations to be made, that too with respect to the matters covered by Section 39 alone, can be prescribed under the Rules according to petitioners. Rule making power vested with the Central Government for carrying out the provisions of the Standards Act, covered under Section 83 of that Act has a specific provision, according to petitioners, with respect to the manner of declaration of the contents of a package. Rule making power under sub-section (2)(r) of Section 83 of the Standards Act with respect to the declaration to be made under Section 39 of the Act is confined to the manner of making such declarations, that alone, and not addition of any matter which is not contemplated by Section 39, is the case projected to assail sub-rule (1A) of Rule 6 as beyond the rule making power of the Central Government. In short, Central Government is not empowered to make sub-rule (1A) of Rule 6 which takes within its purview declaration of new matters not covered by Section 39 of the Standards Act; and, the rule making power of the Central Government is confined to the manner of declaration of the matters covered by that section alone, is the case canvassed to strike down sub-rule (1A) of Rule 6 of the PC Rules as falling outside the rule making power vested with the Central Government, and on that ground to quash the complaint. 9. The questions posed for consideration in the Crl. M.Cs. and the writ petitions to assail the prosecution of petitioners can be formulated as indicated hereunder. In the Crl. M.Cs. the question arising for consideration is over the interpretation of the clause in force immediately before the commencement of this Act in sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Enforcement Act. Does the clause in force immediately before the commencement of this in Section 33 of the enforcement Act in any way curtail or restrict the applicability of the provisions of Standards Act and Rules to intra-State sale or distribution of packaged commodities as it existed when the enforcement Act was brought into force in the State, or is it explanatory in nature that on the operation of Enforcement Act whatever provisions of the Standards Act and Rules made thereunder shall have application over packaged commodities sold or distributed within the State? In the writ petitions the question for consideration is whether sub-rule (1A) of Rule 6 of the PC Rules is beyond the rule making power vested with the Central Government and, thus, liable to be struck down. 10. First I shall advert to the challenge canvassed in the Crl. M.Cs. to assail prosecution of petitioners. That challenge as already indicated is based on the clause as in force immediately before the commencement of this Act in sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Enforcement Act. The aforesaid sub-section as a whole has to be reproduced to examine whether there is any merit in that challenge, which reads thus : 33. Provisions of the Standards Act and the rules made thereunder relating to commodities in packaged form to apply to commodities in packaged form sold or distributed within the State. (1) The provisions of the Standards Act and the rules made thereunder, as in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, with regard to commodities in packaged form shall, as far as may be, apply to every commodity in packaged form which is distributed, sold, or kept, offered or exposed for sale, in the State as if the provisions aforesaid were enacted by, or made under, this Act subject to the modification that any reference therein to the Central Government Standards Act and the Director shall be construed as references respectively, to the State Government this Act and the Controller. Standards Act was enacted to establish Standards of Weights and Measures to regulate inter-State trade or commerce in weights, measures and other goods and all incidental matters connected thereof. Enforcement Act was later enacted to provide for enforcement of the Standards of weights and measures established by or under the Standards Act and the Rules thereof to intra-State trade or commerce. The aforesaid Enforcement Act was brought into force in State of Kerala with effect from 24-7-1992. At the most provisions of the Standards Act and the Rules thereunder in force when the Enforcement Act was made applicable to the State of Kerala, that alone, can be enforced in the State, and not any later amendment made in the Standards Act and Rules, is the challenge projected banking upon the clause in force immediately before the commencement of this Act in sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Enforcement Act. 11. 11. The very purpose of the Enforcement Act as could be seen from the preamble of that Act is for the enforcement of the Standards of weights and measures established by or under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 or incidental thereto in trade or commerce in the States as well with effect from the date the State Government may by notification appoint with respect to the various provisions of the Standards Act, fixing classes of goods, areas etc. for its applicability. By virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Enforcement Act the provisions of the Standards Act and the Rules thereunder relating to commodities in packaged form as applicable to inter-State trade or commerce has been extended to intra-State trade or commerce of packaged products. The clause in force immediately before the commencement of this Act appearing in sub-section (1) Section 33 of the Enforcement Act no way permits of an interpretation that when the Enforcement Act is brought into effect by notification by the State Government intra-State trade or commence of packaged commodities has to be governed by provisions of the Standards Act and the Rules thereof as it existed, that alone, when the Enforcement Act was brought into force in the State. On the contrary, whatever provisions of the Standards Act and Rules in force and continuing to be in force shall apply to the trade or commerce of packaged commodities in the State once the Enforcement Act is made applicable to the State. Any interpretation over the clause in force immediately before the commencement of this Act in the manner canvassed by the petitioners with respect to the applicability of the Standards Act and Rules thereunder over the trade or commerce of packaged commodities within the State is totally misconceived and not reflective of the legislative mandate covered by Section 33 of the Act. The clause in force immediately before the commencement of this Act has to be read only as a parenthetic clause, which does not in any way govern the principal clause covered by the provisions. The principal clause spells out the legislative mandate over the applicability of the provisions of the Standards Act and Rules over intra-State once the enforcement Act is notified in the State. 12. The principal clause spells out the legislative mandate over the applicability of the provisions of the Standards Act and Rules over intra-State once the enforcement Act is notified in the State. 12. Learned senior counsel has relied on a decision rendered by a learned single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court in V-Guard Industries Ltd. v. Controller of Legal Metrology and others (2012 (2) KHC 853 : ( AIR 2012 AP 158 )) where the interpretation placed over the clause as in force immediately before commencement of this Act in sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Enforcement Act has been accepted to hold that provisions of the Standards Act and the Rules made thereunder as it existed when Enforcement Act was notified and made applicable to the State will govern intra-State trade or commerce of Packaged Commodities. No reasoning has been given in the decision to hold that the above mentioned clause in Section 33 has to be interpreted in the manner stated. With respect I may state that learned single Judge has interpreted Section 33 of the Enforcement Act as if it is governed by the clause in force immediately before the commencement of this Act but not analysing that clause in the scheme of that Section itself under the Act and the mischief that is sought to be taken care of by the legislation with respect to intra-State sale of packaged goods making the provisions of the Standards Act and the Rules thereunder applicable to such sale. In the backdrop that the legislation over weights and measures was earlier in the State list but to bring about countrywide uniformity not only the enforcement procedures but also the legal control of Weights and Measures the above subject has been brought into concurrent list under 42nd amendment to the Constitution, the above said clause in force immediately before the commencement of this Act under sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Enforcement Act, has to be examined and interpreted. In the context the mandate covered under Section 4 of the Enforcement Act also assumes much significance. That Section reads thus : 4. In the context the mandate covered under Section 4 of the Enforcement Act also assumes much significance. That Section reads thus : 4. Provisions of this Act to override the provisions of any other law except the Standards Act The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act and the Standards Act or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act or the Standards Act. The provisions of the Enforcement Act shall have overriding effect over laws other than that Act and, the Standards Act. So, the provisions of the Enforcement Act even if it is inconsistent with provisions of any other Act shall prevail, but, other than the Standards Act. If the clause in force immediately before the commencement of this Act is interpreted as suggested to hold that in respect of intra-State sale of packaged commodities the provisions of the Act and the Rules under the Standards Act as it existed when the Enforcement Act was notified and brought into force in that State alone would apply, then, whatever later provisions brought or changes made by repeal or amendment would not have any applicability at all to intra-State sale or distribution of packaged goods. A provision which existed earlier, but later repealed or amended in the Standards Act and the Rules thereunder, to avoid or rectify a mischief noticed, may have to be applied in the State if the aforesaid clause is interpreted as suggested, over intra-State sale of packaged goods. 13. It is a settled principle of construction that to ascertain the legislative intent all the constituent parts of a Statute are to be taken together and each word, phrase or sentence is to be considered in the light of the general purpose and object of the Act itself. Too much significance cannot be attached to a particular clause where any such narrow interpretation placed is shown to be militating against the mischief that is sought to be avoided by the legislation. It is an elementary rule that construction of a section is to be made of all parts together and not of one part only by itself and if at all there is inconsistency to ascertain the meaning the whole section should be read together and also an attempt should be made to reconcile both the parts. It is an elementary rule that construction of a section is to be made of all parts together and not of one part only by itself and if at all there is inconsistency to ascertain the meaning the whole section should be read together and also an attempt should be made to reconcile both the parts. A sound interpretation and meaning of the statute is with a view taking note of the enacting clause and proviso all of them taken together. A sincere attempt should be made to reconcile the enacting clause with any clause which by itself may give rise to a different meaning to avoid repugnancy between the two. Where narrower of the interpretation would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation the established rule of construction is that of accepting the bolder construction based on the view parliament would legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result. Manifest absurdity or futility, palpable injustice or absurd inconvenience or anomaly is to be avoided in interpreting a Statute is highlighted by Maxwell in Interpretation of Statutes Craies on Statute law has stated that every clause of a statute should be construed with reference to the context or the other clauses of the Act, so far as possible, to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute or series of statutes relating to the subject-matter. 14. The clause in force immediately before commencement of this Act in sub-section (1) Section 33 of the Enforcement Act if it is interpreted in the manner suggested by the learned counsel the provisions of the Standard Act and the Rules as on the date when Enforcement Act was notified in a State have to be applied with respect to intra-State sale of packaged goods in the State that would result in absurdity and negate the very purpose for which the Standards Act and the Rules have been made applicable to intra - State sale/or distribution of packaged commodities. In different States the Enforcement Act has been brought into force on different dates, and it depended upon the issue of a Notification by the respective State Government. Section (1)(3) (sic) of the Enforcement Act also makes it clear that the State Government is empowered to issue Notification fixing different dates for the applicability of different provisions under the Act. In different States the Enforcement Act has been brought into force on different dates, and it depended upon the issue of a Notification by the respective State Government. Section (1)(3) (sic) of the Enforcement Act also makes it clear that the State Government is empowered to issue Notification fixing different dates for the applicability of different provisions under the Act. That also has to be taken note in interpreting the clause as in force immediately before the commencement of the Act in sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act. Whatever be the Rules made in respect of packaged commodity under the Standards Act competency and empowerment of the Central Government to bring in amendment, modification, changes etc. to such Rules is not open to doubt. So much so if any amendment to such Rules is made, normally, it will have only prospective operation. Applicability of that amended Rule and relevant provisions of the Standards Act and other Rules thereunder in relation to the Enforcement Act depend upon the Notification issued by the State Government. In a State where notification over the Enforcement Act by the State Government is after such an amendment, definitely, the amended rule will have to be applied. However, in respect of a transaction in intra-State sale of packaged goods before the amendment came into force, in a State where Enforcement Act has already been brought into force by Notification, then, existing provisions of the Standards Act and the Rules alone would apply to such transaction. A meaningful and purposeful interpretation to advance the legislative intent covered by Section 33 of the Act reading the section as a whole would clearly demonstrate that the clause in force immediately before the commencement of this Act has impact to the applicability of the Standards Act and the Rules thereunder in respect of intra-State sale of packaged goods with reference to the date of transaction, and not in the manner canvassed by counsel that the provisions of the Standards Act and the Rules as existed when brought into and enforced by Notification of the Government. Such narrow interpretation canvassed by petitioners over the clause as in force immediately commencement of this Act in sub-section (1) of Section 33 would defeat the very purpose for which Section 33 has been brought into the statute. Such narrow interpretation canvassed by petitioners over the clause as in force immediately commencement of this Act in sub-section (1) of Section 33 would defeat the very purpose for which Section 33 has been brought into the statute. Clause in force immediately commencement of this Act in sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Enforcement Act is only explanatory in nature and it no way interdict the applicability of the Standards Act and the provisions as in force on the date of transaction of packaged commodities in intra-State sale. Challenge canvassed by petitioners/accused persons to assail their prosecution on the basis of interpretation sought to be placed over the aforesaid clause has no merit. 15. In the writ petitions challenge is over the rule making power of the Central Government to set down sub-rule (1A) of Rule 6 of PC Rules on the premise that Section 39 of the Standards Act govern matters over which prescription by rules can be made, and what is prescribed under sub-R. (1A) of Rule 6 of PC Rules is outside the rule making power. The relevant sections and rules have to be taken note of in considering the challenges raised in the writ petitions as aforesaid. 16. Chapter IV in the Standards Act deal with commodities in packaged form intended to be sold or distributed in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Section 39(2) in that Chapter reads thus : 39. Quantities and origin of commodities in packaged form to be declared (1) ........................... (2) Every package to which this part applies shall bear thereon the name of the manufacturer and also of the packer or distributor. Section 83 deals with the power to make rules under the Standards Act by the Central Government. Section 83(2) (r) deals with the rule making power of the Central Government with respect to the manner of declarations of the contents and other details made over a package of good. That sub-section reads thus : 83. Power to make rules (1) ...................................... (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 : (a) ........................................ That sub-section reads thus : 83. Power to make rules (1) ...................................... (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 : (a) ........................................ (r) the manner of declaration of the contents of a package and specification of the unit of weight, measure or number in accordance with which the retail sale price shall be declared on the package; Packaged rules framed under Section 83 of the Standards Act deal with various provisions over the sale, distribution or delivery of packaged commodities. Petitioners are being prosecuted alleging violation of Rule 6(1A) of the above Rules. That Rule reads thus : 6. Declaration to be made on every package (1) ................................. (1A) Every package shall bear the name, address, telephone number, E-mail address, if available, of the person who can be or the office which can be, contacted, in case of consumer complaints. Rule 6(1A) has been brought in by amendment under a Notification G.S.R. 425 (E) dated 17-7-2006. Several other changes have been brought in the packaged rules under the aforesaid notification with which we are not concerned, laying down that the amended rules would come into effect immediately on expiry of 180 days from the date of its publication in the official gazette. Transaction over the packaged goods in the present case covered by the writ petitions, admittedly, took place after the above said Rule 6(1A) of the packaged Rules came into force. 17. Learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners argued before me that Rule 6(1) of the Package Rules takes within its ambit whatever is legitimately comprehended under Section 39(2) read with section 83 of the Act in respect of which prescription by way of Rules could be made. What is mandated under Section 39(2) of that Act is only that every package should bear the name of the manufacturer and also the packer or distributor is pointed out by the counsel to contend that the Rule 6(1) framed, in exercise of the rule making power under Section 83(2)(r) of the Act takes care of the prescription over the declaration to be made in the packaged commodity. Rule 6(1A) which causes an additional sub-standard obligation to be performed by the manufacturer or packer, that too by way of statutory declaration, is beyond the rule making power covered by Section 83 of the Act and, further, it transgresses the scope and limit under Section 39(2) of the Act, is the submission of the counsel. Such a Rule (Rule 6(1A)) can be brought into effect only after amending Section 39(2) of the Act by proper legislation, is the further submission of the counsel. 18. The question is whether Rule 6(1A) brought in by amendment is beyond the rule making power of the Central Government and does it transgress or violate the provisions covered by Section 39(2) and Section 83 of the Standards Act. Section 39(2) of the above Act, quoted above only directs furnishing the name of the manufacturer and also of the packer and distributor in the package. Rule making power of the Government under Section 83(2)(r) of the Act, enables only framing of rules over the manner in which the declaration of the contents of a package and specification of the unit of weight, measure or number is to be made on the package, is the submission of the counsel for petitioners. What is dealt under Section 83(2)(r) referred to above is something which falls under sub-section (1) and not under sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Act mandating that the packaged good shall bear the name of the manufacturer and also the packer or distributor. So reliance placed on Section 83(2)(r) of the Act by the learned counsel for petitioners to impeach the rule making power of the Government to frame Rule 6(1A) of the Packaged Rules has no merit. Now, coming to the rule making power of the Government also, it is to be noticed that what is given under sub-section (2) of Section 83 of the Act in framing of Rules are only illustrative for giving effect to the Act and not exhaustive. Without prejudice to the generality of the rule making power of the Government, it is stated, the rules framed may provide for all or any of the matters illustrated. None of the matters spelt out under Rule (2) (sic) curtail the rule making power of the Government to frame such rules as may be necessary for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act. None of the matters spelt out under Rule (2) (sic) curtail the rule making power of the Government to frame such rules as may be necessary for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act. That is all the more visible from the last clause provided as Rule (2)(zd) stating that rule making power of the Government extends to any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed. Prescribed has been defined under Section 2(s) of the Act thus : S. 2. Definitions In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires (a) ................................................ (s) prescribed means prescribed by rules made under this Act and prescribed authority means such authority as may be specified by such rules. What could be prescribed in exercise of the rule making power under Rules to give effect and enforce the provisions of the Act cannot at all be whittled down by placing too much significance on illustrative matters provided under sub-section (2) of Section 83(2) of the Act in framing Rules. A reading of sub-section (2) of Section 83 of the Act providing the illustrations over which rules may be made it can be seen that clauses (r) to (v), five illustrations, alone have nexus with packaged commodities. If the argument of the senior counsel is accepted, then, only with respect to those five matters covered under sub-section (2) of Section 83 alone the Government can frame rules over packaged commodities. Packaged rules as already indicated was brought into regulate the sale, distribution or delivery of packaged commodities in inter-State trade and commerce. Now, by virtue of Section 33 of the Enforcement Act, such rules are applicable to intra-State trade and commerce also. Section 39(2) of the Standards Act specifically mandates furnishing of the name of the manufacturer and also of the packer and distributor of a packaged commodity, no way limits the rule making power of the Government to prescribe under Rules the manner in which the declaration has to be made. No amendment to that section is required to empower the Government when it enjoins the Rule making power to frame whatever rules necessary for giving effect and enforcing the Standards Act including any matter how the declaration is to be made in a packaged good by the manufacturer, packer or distributor. No amendment to that section is required to empower the Government when it enjoins the Rule making power to frame whatever rules necessary for giving effect and enforcing the Standards Act including any matter how the declaration is to be made in a packaged good by the manufacturer, packer or distributor. What is prescribed under Rule 6(1A) of P.C. Rules brought in by amendment is a mandatory requirement that every package shall bear the name, address, telephone number, E-mail address, if available of the person who can be contacted or the office which can be contacted in case of consumer complaints. For redressing any complaint from a consumer of a packaged goods, it is evidently clear such a declaration with particulars specified on the package is insisted in the new rule. A consumer purchasing the packaged good if he has any complaint thereof can immediately contact the person or the office, if necessary information thereof is shown in the package. Insistence for such declaration, rather, furnishing of information on the packaged commodity, which is intended to give effect to the provisions of the Act and Rules and also to safeguard the interest of the consumers, cannot be impeached on the ground that the Government do not have the rule making power to prescribe such a rule. The rule making power of the Government to frame such a rule insisting upon the manufacturer, packer or distributor to furnish the details as mandated in the packaged commodity has to be examined with reference to the provisions of the Act and the empowerment of the Government to frame rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act. When that is so examined, there is absolutely no merit in the challenge canvassed that Rule 6(1A) brought in by amendment to the packaged Rules is beyond the Rule making power of the Government. There is no merit in the challenge canvassed to assail Rule 6(1A) of Packaged Rules as falling outside the rule making power of the Central Government. Writ Petitions and Crl. M.Cs. are devoid of any merit and all petitions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.