JUDGMENT & ORDER : M.R. Shah, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No. 8309 of 2011, by which, the learned Single Judge has allowed the said petition preferred by the respondent herein and learned Single Judge has set aside the conditions forming part of the Schedule VI-A of the Gujarat Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011 and has directed original respondent department to consider the original petitioner's application for renewal, as if those conditions are not existed in the statute books, the original respondent - State has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeal in nutshell are as under: 2.1. That the original petitioner is a registered association having its members, who are working as 'repairer' as defined under the provisions of The Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2009' for short). That the members of the original petitioner are in the vocation of repairing weight and measures. That prior to the year 2009 i.e. before the Act came into force, there was an Act called 'the Standard of weight and measures Act, 1976' and 'the Standard of weight and measures (enforcement) Act, 1985'. On the enactment of the Act of 2009, the aforesaid two acts came to be repealed. That the members of the petitioner Association were issued appropriate licence for carrying out repairing work under the provisions of the Act prevailing prior to enactment of Act of 2009. That in the year 2009, the aforesaid act came to be enacted and came into force. That as per Section 53 of the Act of 2009, State Government, after consultation with the Central Government is empowered to make rules for the subject mentioned thereunder. That in exercise of powers under Section 53 of the Act of 2009, the State Government promulgated rules called 'the Gujarat Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules 2011' (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules 2011"). In the said Rules, the provisions of Rule 11 (11) and Schedule VI-A came to be made, under which, certain conditions are provided for grant of license for 'repair". Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied Schedule VI-A (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5)(d) and Table D, Rule 11(11) of the Rules, 2011, the original petitioner preferred aforesaid Special Civil Application before this Court. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied Schedule VI-A (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5)(d) and Table D, Rule 11(11) of the Rules, 2011, the original petitioner preferred aforesaid Special Civil Application before this Court. The relevant provisions which were challenged before the learned Single, reads as under: "1. The workshop of the repairer shall not be in a residential premises. 2. The workshop should be having minimum 50 sqm areas and shall be preferably located on the ground floor or the basement. However, workshop will be permitted above ground floor if lift is provided in working condition in the building. The present licensee repairers shall comply with this provision within a time frame of 12 months from the date of notification of this Rules. 3. Minimum experience required: The owner/partner in the repairer licence for repairing electronic balance class-III and class-IV (load cell based technology)may be diploma holder in Electronic/Electrical/Instrumentation Engineering in a government recognized institute. The skilled workers employed by him shall be holding Government recognized ITI electronic/electrical/instrumentation trade certificate. The owner/partner in the repairer licence for repairing electronic balance class-I and class-II (magnet based technology) may be a diploma holder in Electronic/Electrical/Instrumentation Engineering in the government recognized institute. The skilled workers employed by him shall be holding Government recognized ITI electronic/electrical/instrumentation trade certificate. Also skilled workers having experience of more than 1 year as Service Engineer/Service Technician in the manufacturing company of such magnet based electronic balances will be preferable. However, in case the owner/partner does not have the prescribed qualifications, an employee having such qualifications may be employed. 4. All skilled workers of the licence holder will be issued a photo ID by the licence holder and photographs will also be affixed in the licence itself. Only such authorized skilled workers can present the weights and measures to the concerned Legal Metrology Officer for verification and stamping. 5. (d) All licencee repairers shall be required to keep loan sets as per Table-D for repairing of electronic weighing instruments. 5. (f) All licencee manufactures shall be required to keep tools and accessories as per Table-F in their production workshop." 2.2. 5. (d) All licencee repairers shall be required to keep loan sets as per Table-D for repairing of electronic weighing instruments. 5. (f) All licencee manufactures shall be required to keep tools and accessories as per Table-F in their production workshop." 2.2. By impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition and has set aside the Schedule VI-A (1), (2), (3), 5(d) and 5(e) being unreasonable and discriminatory and not having any guidance whatsoever in its implementation and has directed the authority to consider the application of the "repairs"/application for renewal of license as "repairs" as if those conditions are not existing in the statute book. 2.3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the State has preferred present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader has assailed the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge by making following submissions: A. The learned Single Judge has failed to consider the case put up by the respondents. B. The learned Single Judge has not considered reply and further reply filed by the respondents. C. The learned Single Judge has not considered that the Rules framed by the State Authority are as per power conferred to the State as per Section 53 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. D. The learned Single Judge has not considered that the Rules are framed for benefit of public at large and for ensuring better quality of work of the repairs and to minimize errors in the quantum of sale of goods to the consumers. E. The learned Single Judge has not considered that the rules are framed for protection of the consumers from any kind of irregularities perpetrated in trade and therefore, the members of the original petitioner association have no right to challenge such rules. F. The learned Single Judge has failed to consider that as per communication of the Central Government Rules 11(12) was objected to and not Rule 11(11) and therefore, only part-B of the Schedule VI-A was in objection and not whole of the Schedule VI-A. G. The learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the issue of minimum education qualification is framed by the Authorities and confirmed by the legislature and therefore, same is not required to be interfered with. H. The learned Single Judge has not considered the draft copy of the rules were given to the petitioner association and after amicably resolved their problem the rules were framed and therefore, same cannot be challenged by the association. I. The learned Single Judge has failed to consider that rules are for all kind of repairing work in weights and measure equipments including sophisticated and latest electronic weights and measures equipments for which one needs gadgets for the repairing and testing work. 3.2. It is further submitted that by Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader that in the present case the learned Single Judge has materially erred in observing that due care and caution could have taken by the State Government referring the matter back to the Union of India indicating that reading of their communication could be that the Union of India did not entertain to dispense with the entire Schedule VI-A but insisted only to desire with a part of the Schedule. 3.3. It is further submitted that by Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has materially erred in declaring the Schedule VI-A (1), (2), (3), 5(d) and 5(e) being unreasonable and discriminatory. Making above submissions and relying upon the affidavit in reply and additional affidavit in main petition and following decisions, it is requested to allow the present appeal. 1. (2000)5 SCC 471 . 2. (1996) 3 SCC 709 . 3. (2008) 8 SCC 842. 4. Present Appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Prabhav Mehta, learned advocate for the original petitioner. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and the purpose and object of the Act, 2009 vis-a-vis the provision of Schedule VI-A when the learned Single Judge has specifically observed and held that the conditions are as such unreasonable, without any guidance and even there was no effective consultation as required, the learned Single Judge has rightly held the aforesaid provisions unreasonable and has rightly quashed and set aside the same. 4.1. Shri Mehta, learned advocate for the original petitioner has reiterated what was submitted before the learned Single Judge. Making above submissions and relying upon the following decisions, it is requested to dismiss the present appeal. 1. AIR 1953 (Madras) 392. 2. (1974) 1 SCC 68 . 3. (2007) 13 SCC 673 . 4. 4.1. Shri Mehta, learned advocate for the original petitioner has reiterated what was submitted before the learned Single Judge. Making above submissions and relying upon the following decisions, it is requested to dismiss the present appeal. 1. AIR 1953 (Madras) 392. 2. (1974) 1 SCC 68 . 3. (2007) 13 SCC 673 . 4. (2008) 5 SCC 416 . 5. (2015) 5 SCC 1 . 5. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. We have considered and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. We have also considered the relevant provision of Schedule VI-A of the Rules, 2011 which are declared unreasonable and having no guidance. 5.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by impugned judgment and order learned Single Judge has set aside the Schedule VI-A(1), (2), (3), 5(d) and 5(e) as unreasonable and not having any guidance whatsoever of its implementation, which reads as under: "1. The workshop of the repairer shall not be in a residential premises. 2. The workshop should be having minimum 50 sqm areas and shall be preferably located on the ground floor or the basement. However, workshop will be permitted above ground floor if lift is provided in working condition in the building. The present licensee repairers shall comply with this provision within a time frame of 12 months from the date of notification of this Rules. 3. Minimum experience required: The owner/partner in the repairer licence for repairing electronic balance class-III and class-IV (load cell based technology) may be diploma holder in Electronic/Electrical/Instrumentation Engineering in a government recognized institute. The skilled workers employed by him shall be holding Government recognized ITI electronic/electrical/instrumentation trade certificate. The owner/partner in the repairer licence for repairing electronic balance class-I and class-II (magnet based technology) may be a diploma holder in Electronic/Electrical/Instrumentation Engineering in the government recognized institute. The skilled workers employed by him shall be holding Government recognized ITI electronic/electrical/instrumentation trade certificate. Also skilled workers having experience of more than 1 year as Service Engineer/Service Technician in the manufacturing company of such magnet based electronic balances will be preferable. However, in case the owner/partner does not have the prescribed qualifications, an employee having such qualifications may be employed. 4. Also skilled workers having experience of more than 1 year as Service Engineer/Service Technician in the manufacturing company of such magnet based electronic balances will be preferable. However, in case the owner/partner does not have the prescribed qualifications, an employee having such qualifications may be employed. 4. All skilled workers of the licence holder will be issued a photo ID by the licence holder and photographs will also be affixed in the licence itself. Only such authorized skilled workers can present the weights and measures to the concerned Legal Metrology Officer for verification and stamping. 5.(d) All licencee repairers shall be required to keep loan sets as per Table-D for repairing of electronic weighing instruments. 5.(f) All licencee manufactures shall be required to keep tools and accessories as per Table-F in their production workshop." 5.2. On facts, the learned Single Judge specifically observed that imposing the aforesaid conditions in the Rules there was no effective consultation as required under the provision of Section 53 of the main Act which would justify the State's action of promulgating the rules especially Rule 11(11) r/w Schedule VI-A. Considering the conditions imposed which are found to be absolutely unreasonable and without any guidance and not in consonance with the provision of the main Act it has been specifically observed by the learned Single Judge that conditions did not pass the scrutiny provided under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and unequal are treated as equal and it provides for similar conditions for unequal for the same fashion which would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5.3. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the draft rules with insertion of two sub Rules and Schedule viz. 11(11) and 11(12) with Schedule VI-A came to be incorporated by the State Government and thereafter draft rules was sent to the Union of India to fulfill requirement of complying with the provisions of consultation. It has come on record that Union of India had sent it back with its comment to the State Government vide communication dated 6.1.2011 in which, it was specifically mentioned that the deletion of Rules 11(12) as well as Schedule VI-A. It is true that thereafter the State invited the objection which came to be considered. It has come on record that Union of India had sent it back with its comment to the State Government vide communication dated 6.1.2011 in which, it was specifically mentioned that the deletion of Rules 11(12) as well as Schedule VI-A. It is true that thereafter the State invited the objection which came to be considered. However, the question is with respect to the consultation/effective consultation with the Union of India as required under the provisions of the Act. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge that there was some error in the communication dated 6.1.2011 that Schedule VI was wrongly excluded in that case, the State Government ought to have reverted back to the Union of India. Therefore, on facts the learned Single Judge has rightly held that there was no effective and proper consultation before inserting relevant rules and Schedule VI-A. 5.4. That on facts, the learned Single Judge has specifically observed that State has treated all repairers to be following in the same group but prescribed various qualifications without any appropriate guidelines as to which qualification is to be applied or insisted upon for licencing a repairer for repairing which type of gadget, tool or apparatus, as the weighing apparatus and gadget have not been classified and repairers category is also not classified. In para 26 and 27, the learned Single Judge observed and held as under: 26. This Court is of the considered view that the submission with regard to invention and various applications and/or gadgets cannot be lightly brushed aside and therefore there appears to be justification for prescribing a standard or acquiring of insisting of educational qualifications to repair and handle those gadgets but a question arises as to whether sheer requirement of handling sophisticated gadget itself can be said to be sufficient for introducing the requirement which is found objectionable by the petitioners. The answer would be emphatically 'no', as even if one looks at the parent act the definition of 'repairer' is not attached with any further classification and/or differentiation. The repairers are treated as a class and therefore, there could be a simplistic argument canvassed that as the parent act is not providing for any classification. The answer would be emphatically 'no', as even if one looks at the parent act the definition of 'repairer' is not attached with any further classification and/or differentiation. The repairers are treated as a class and therefore, there could be a simplistic argument canvassed that as the parent act is not providing for any classification. The rules need not make further classification and, therefore, the rules, as such, cannot be said to be objectionable but that simplistic argument is required to be rejected outrightly as the rules have introduced an element in which, if it is not justified, then, it would amount to deprive the repairers who have been carrying out the repairing vocation since years will be deprived of their right to carry out the trade with one stroke of pain which cannot be an intention and/or even aim of the legislative exercise of power. 27. The said power is found to be objectionable on the ground that the State has treated all repairers to be following in the same group but prescribed various qualifications without any appropriate guidelines as to which qualification is to be applied or insisted upon for licencing a repairer for repairing which type of gadget, tool or apparatus, as the weighing apparatus and gadget have not been classified and repairers category is also not classified, then question arises as to what extent the same rule could be said to be applicable to all repairers indiscriminately where under a small type of repairer who proclaimed to be repairer of a mechanical device, which is a simple device or instrument or weight is also required to have a workshop of 50 sq. meter to be located on the ground floor and is deprived of his right to carry out his activity within this premises also. Thus, the insistence of workshop and insistence of those fine qualifications without further guidance or guidelines to the issuing authority with those are to be insisted upon in case of a particular class of a particular gadget or instrument would indicate that there appears to be treating differently situated category of citizens with the same set of rules which has no ineligible nexus with the purpose to be achieved." 5.5. That thereafter, the learned Single Judge has dealt with and considered each and every requirements/conditions mentioned in the Schedule VI-A in para 30 onwards and with detailed reasons all are held to be unreasonable and having no nexus and/or with no guidance. 6. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and even considering decisions which are relied upon by the learned counsel for the respective parties referred to herein above, we are of the opinion that well reasoned with specific findings that the respective conditions mentioned in Schedule VI-A are absolutely unreasonable, without any guidance, treating unequal/equal and without any proper consultation did not call for the interference of this Court in exercise of the Appellate jurisdiction. At this stage, it is required to be noted and it is reported that even rules are framed, are amended thereafter. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal fails and same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. In view of dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application stands dismissed.