Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 655 (ORI)

S. K. Mahto v. State of Orissa

2018-07-12

B.R.SARANGI, VINEET SARAN

body2018
JUDGMENT VINEET SARAN, CJ. - The petitioners are the officers of Steel Authority of India Ltd, Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela an integrated Steel Plant in the State of Orissa which is a public sector undertaking of Government of India and was established for manufacturing, marketing quality steel in the domestic as well as in international market. In course of production of Steel, the impurities in the iron ore such as Silica, Sulphide and residues from coke, dolomite lime stone, etc. are flushed out from the Blast Furnace which is called “Slag”. The slag does not have market value or use excepting in manufacture of Slag Cement. The hot molten slag from the Blast Furnace is carried in Slag Pots from Blast furnace to the Slag Granulation Plant. The temperature of the Slag is as high as 1500 degree centigrade, the same is cooled down by water jets under high pressure. The slag which is porus in nature absorbs water and after some time water is released. The slag, excepting its use in manufacture of slag cement, has no significant market value for which it is dumped in Blast Furnace Slag Dump Yard. 2. The Senior Inspector of Legal Metrology, Rourkela (Enforcement) on 18.10.1997 at about 2.30 P.M. inspected Slag Granulation Plant of Rourkela Steel Plant. In course of inspection it was revealed that the slag were being sold by truck on measurement, and thus the Inspector issued compounding notice of Rs.3,000/- on each of the petitioners, who were Executives of Rourkela Steel Plant, alleging contravention of Section 22 of the Standards of Weights and Measure (Enforcement) Act, 1985. He neither seized any truck carrying slag sold on volumetric basis nor any documentary evidence to show that material was sold on volumetric basis and issued compounding notice of Rs.3000/- on each of the executives, the petitioners herein. 3. Against the said compounding notices, the petitioners filed appeal before the Controller, Legal Metrology-opposite party no.2 stating inter alia that the compounding notices were issued without giving opportunity of hearing and therefore the same be quashed. But, the appellate authority-opposite party no.2 on a frivolous ground without considering the appeal, transmitted to the court of law for trial, contending that the petitioners-appellants failed to prove the contents of the appeal petition. Hence this application. 4. Mr. But, the appellate authority-opposite party no.2 on a frivolous ground without considering the appeal, transmitted to the court of law for trial, contending that the petitioners-appellants failed to prove the contents of the appeal petition. Hence this application. 4. Mr. S.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the “Hydrous” is semi-solid product containing water, the sale of the same by volume is permissible in view of Clause (d) of Rule 11 of the Orissa Standard of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules, 1993. Thereby it is contended that the compounding notices dated 20.10.1997 in Annexure-2 series issued to each of the petitioners, without giving opportunity of hearing and consequential appellate order transmitting the case to the court of law for trial on the ground that the petitioners failed to prove the contents in the appeal petition dated 30.11.1998 in Annexure-1 be quashed. 5. Mr. R.K. Mohapatra, learned Government Advocate argued with vehemence that since the petitioners did not produce any evidence with regard to the method of measurement, the orders passed by the authority issuing compounding notices and consequential order of appellate authority transmitting the case record to the court of law for trial is well justified, which does not warrant interference of this Court at this stage. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. On perusal of the records, as well as the impugned order passed by the appellate authority, it is clear that at the time of inspection, the Senior Inspector of Legal Metrology, Rourkela (Enforcement), who had inspected the slag granulation plant of the Rourkela Steel Plant on 18.10.1997, found that the granulated slag were being sold in trucks by measurement. But it is the sole case of the opposite party that the product ‘hydrous’ was being sold by “volume” measurement, whereas it should have been sold by “weight” which is the only permissible way of measurement. 7. In exercise of power conferred by Sub-Section (1) of Section 72 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985, the State Government framed a rule called “The Orissa Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules, 1993. The Rule in question has got statutory force. Therefore, for the just and proper adjudication of the case, the relevant Rule-11 of the Orissa Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules, 1993 is reproduced below: “11. The Rule in question has got statutory force. Therefore, for the just and proper adjudication of the case, the relevant Rule-11 of the Orissa Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules, 1993 is reproduced below: “11. Use of Weights only or measures only or Number only in certain cases- Except in the cases of commodities specified in Schedule IV the declaration of quantity in every transaction, dealing or contract, or for industrial production or for protection shall be in terms of the unit of: (a) weight, if the commodity is solid, semi- solid viscous or a mixture of solid and liquid; (b) length, if the commodity is sold by linear measure; (c) area, if the commodity is sold by area measure; (d) volume, if the commodity is liquid or is sold by cubic measure; or (e) number, if the commodity is sold by number;” (emphasis supplied) 8. It is well settled principle of law of interpretation that applying the rule of literal construction the words of a statute are first understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and phrases and sentences are construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless that leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context, or in the object of the statute to suggest the contrary as held by the apex Court in Jugalkishore Saraf v. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd., AIR 1955 SC 376 , Madanlal Fakir Chand Dudhediya v. Sri Changdeo Sugar Mills Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1543 , Mohammad Ali Khan v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, AIR 1997 SC 1165 and State of Rajasthan v. Babu Ram, AIR 2007 SC 2018 . 9. Applying the rule of Literal Construction as discussed above and on perusal of Clause (d) of Rule-11 of Rules, 1993, it is clear that the method of measurement by “volume” is permissible and “weighing” of the product alone is not the only method of measurement. The appellate authority, while mentioning the facts of the case in his order dated 30.11.1998 in Annexure-1 specifically indicated that– “the Senior Inspector of Legal Metrology, Rourkela (Enforcement) inspected the slag granulation Plant of the Rourkela Steel Plant on 18.10.1997 and found that the granulated slag are being sold in trucks by measurement”. But the only question remains with regard to methodology adopted for sale of slag by the opposite party. But the only question remains with regard to methodology adopted for sale of slag by the opposite party. To that, it is admitted that the same was done on “volume” basis, which also a permissible mode prescribed under Clause (d) of Rule- 11 of the Orissa Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules, 1993. 10. The meaning of “compounding” has been prescribed in “Advanced Law Lexicon of P. Ramanath Aiyar 4th Edition” “arranging, coming to terms; condone for money, arranging with the creditor to his satisfaction”. Applying meaning of the “compounding” mentioned above to the present case, the petitioners did not come to the terms for commission of such offence to condone the same for money. Rather, the Senior Inspector, Legal Metrology had unilaterally issued compounding notices of Rs.3000/- each of the petitioners without affording opportunity of hearing, thereby there is gross violation of principles of natural justice. Giving notice to the affected party being the basic norm of compliance of the principles of natural justice and the same having not been followed, compounding notices issued on 20.10.1997 in Annexure-2 series by the authority concerned cannot sustain in the eye of law. 11. In English Oxford Dictionaries “hydrous” has been defined to the following effect: “Containing water as a constituent. ‘a hydrous lava flow’.” In Advanced Law Lexicon of P. Ramanath Aiyar 4th Edition, it was specified that- ““hydrous” is a scientific term, indicating the presence of water.” 12. In view of such meaning attach to word hydrous, the weighment of “hydrous” is a semi-solid state can only be done by “volume” as prescribed under Clause (d) of Rule-11 of Rules 1993. 13. The contention raised before the appellate authority that the “hydrous” can be measured on “volume” basis, the same was not considered in proper perspective rather the impugned order dated 30.11.1998 in Annexure-1 itself stated that whatever may be the value of slag, the same is considered as a “solid material” and all the transactions should have been made by “weight” only. By giving such observation, the appellate authority had not applied his mind in proper perspective and the finding arrived at by him stating that “hydrous” can only be sold by “weight” is an absolutely misconceived one. By giving such observation, the appellate authority had not applied his mind in proper perspective and the finding arrived at by him stating that “hydrous” can only be sold by “weight” is an absolutely misconceived one. Consequential transmitting of the same to the court of law for trial, stating that the petitioners failed to prove the contents in appeal petition, cannot sustain in the eye of law. 14. As it is admitted in the appellate order that the Senior Inspector, Legal Metrology had found that the slag was being sold by measurement and since the “volume” is a mode of measurement, we are of the considered opinion that imposition of any penalty by issuing compounding notices in Annexure-2 series are wholly unjustified and the consequential appellate order passed by the appellate authority on 30.11.1998 in Annexure-1 also being an outcome of non-application of mind, both Annexures-2 and 1 deserve to be quashed, and are accordingly quashed. 15. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to cost. Petition allowed.