JUDGMENT : The writ petition is preferred by a Government of India undertaking, involved in the production of blood bags, Cu-T etc. The grievance voiced in the writ petition is with respect to the decision taken by the 3 rd respondent to calibrate the tanks installed in the premises of the petitioner in view of Sections 24(1) and (2) and 3(j) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act,1985 ( for short, the ‘Enforcement Act’) and Section 2(z) of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (For short, ‘the Act 1976’). 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner had installed a storage tank having capacity of 20,000 liters for the purpose of storing the furnace oil in their factory in 1995. Two storage tanks for storing High Speed Diesel having a capacity of 10,000 litres and 8,000 litres were installed in the year 2001. It is further stated that, the petitioner is using the furnace oil and High Speed Diesel stored in the tanks mentioned above only as fuel in the Boiler and DG sets, which are not raw material for the production of blood bags and Cu-T, the products manufactured by the petitioner. The petitioner is not involved in the selling of the furnace oil and High Speed Diesel stored in the said storage tanks or supplying the same to any other third party. The petitioner purchases furnace oil and HSD from the Cochin Refineries Ltd and BPCL, which are then transported to the petitioner’s factory by the petitioner through a contractor. 3. While so, the petitioner received Ext.P1 demand notice dated 09.02.2004 from the first respondent informing that, the storage tanks comes under the definition of Sections 2(V) and (Z) of the Act 1976 and Section 3(J) of the Enforcement Act and requesting to take urgent steps to get the storage tanks calibrated by the Legal Metrology Department at the earliest. Thereafter, the 1 st respondent issued a demand dated 03.03.2004 whereby, directed to remit an amount of Rs.77,318/-. Being aggrieved by that, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 69 of the Enforcement Act before the 2 nd respondent. Whereas, the 2 nd respondent as per order dated 11.04.2005 upheld the demands covered by Exts.P1 and P2 as per Ext.P3. Thereafter, the 1 st respondent issued a demand dated 03.03.2004 whereby, directed to remit an amount of Rs.77,318/-. Being aggrieved by that, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 69 of the Enforcement Act before the 2 nd respondent. Whereas, the 2 nd respondent as per order dated 11.04.2005 upheld the demands covered by Exts.P1 and P2 as per Ext.P3. Being aggrieved by that, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition under Section 69(5) of the Enforcement Act before the 3 rd respondent. By order dated 09.05.2006, the revision petition was also dismissed, which is produced as Ext.P4. 4. According to the petitioner, the tanks which are installed by the petitioner is only for the purpose of storing the furnace oil, which is not a commercial purpose as contemplated under the provisions of Section 24 of the Enforcement Act. Going by Section 24 of the Enforcement Act, it stands for verification and stamping of any weights or measures in the custody or control of a person in circumstances indicating that, such weight or measure is being, or is intended or likely to be, used by him in any transaction or for industrial production or for protection, shall, before putting such weight or measure into such use, have such weight or measure verified at such place and during such hours as the controller may, by general or special order, specifiy in this behalf. On the strength of this provision, it is contented by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that, the tanks which are stored by the petitioner are used only for the purpose of storing furnace oil and high speed diesel. 5. Furnace oil is only used as a fuel to the boilers used in the production and not as a raw material. Similarly, High Speed Diesel which is purchased by the petitioner is used as fuel for DG sets, which is also not used as a raw material for the production. Moreover, it is also brought to the attention of this Court that, the objective of the Act provided in the beginning of the Act is as follows; “This is an Act to establish standards of weights and measures, to regulate inter-state trade or commerce in weights, measure and other goods which are sold or distributed by weight, measure or number, and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”. While dealing with the provisions of this Act, this objective must be looked into. Section 24 is also defined for such purpose. Thereby, the tanks which are used only for the purpose of storage will not come under the ambit of the provisions under the Act,1976 and the Enforcement Act. 6. In response to the contentions, the learned Government Pleader on the strength of the counter affidavit filed and a common judgment in OP No.15818/1995, OP No.13965/1995, OP No.27852/2000 submitted that, storage tanks which are used perhaps only internally for storage purposes and for transferring commodities while they are undergoing processing are intended to come within the definition of transaction. Furnace oil or High Speed Diesel which is stored in the tanks in the company’s premises and used for production purpose also comes within the definition of industrial production and protection. Similarly, the contentions raised in grounds A to D are refuted. Wherein it is stated that, the storage tanks possessed by the petitioner company comes within the definition of weights and measures as envisaged under Section 2(zc) and Section 2(zd) of the Act, 1976. The petitioner’s storage tanks are to be treated as weights and measures used for transaction, industrial production and protection. Thereby these tanks have to be verified (calibrated) as required under Sections 22 and 24 of the Enforcement Act. 7. Furnace oil and HSD are stored in tanks in the company’s premises and it is being used for production purposes. The petitioner’s use of storage tank is not its internal matter but it involved transaction, industrial production and protection, even if the petitioner’s contention regarding the internal matter is accepted for the sake of argument, which has to be verified as required under the law. Therefore, Ext.P1, P2,P3 and P4 are legally sustainable. In support of the contention, the learned Government Pleader relied on W.A No.791/2002 which is based on Ext.R1(a) judgment in which whether the storage tanks utilized by the Bharath Petroleum is liable to be calibrated in exercise of powers under Sections 22 and 24 of the Enforcement Act was in question. 8. The learned Single Judge has observed that, a storage tank where an intermediate or raw material is kept is “possession of a measure” in a circumstance indicating that, such measure is intended or likely to be used by him in a transaction or industrial production. 8. The learned Single Judge has observed that, a storage tank where an intermediate or raw material is kept is “possession of a measure” in a circumstance indicating that, such measure is intended or likely to be used by him in a transaction or industrial production. It comes within the mischief of Section 24 of the Enforcement Act. In the light of such finding, para 14 of the judgment concluded that storage tanks which are used perhaps only internally for storage purposes and for transferring commodities while they are undergoing processing, are intended to come within the definition. To read into it that measurement was to guarantee its accuracy vis-a-vis the consumer is impermissible. When the provision of the enactment is clear and not ambiguous, the court has no business to interpolate the words or restrict the meanings by any purposive interpretation. The Act was definitely not one confined to the objective of safeguarding the interest of the consumers alone. It had a larger perspective. The writ appeal preferred against the said judgment as mentioned above was dismissed on the ground that, there is no ground to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge. 9. In response to the afore contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner produced another judgment in W.A No.56/2014 which is between Inspector of Legal Metrology v. Kancor Ingredients Ltd . The facts involved in that case, is that the respondent therein is a company engaged in the manufacture of Oledresins, essential oils of spices, color pigments used in food industry, etc. For the purpose of manufacturing, the respondent has setup a factory at Angamali. For the purpose of storing its raw materials and other products, the respondent had erected 11 horizontal storage tanks, which according to the respondent, are not liable to be calibrated or verified by the appellants in exercise of their powers conferred under the provisions contained in standard of Weights and Measures(Enforcement) Act, 1985 and the Rules 1992. 10. The relevant portion of the Inspector of legal Metrology’s case (Supra) is extracted hereunder; “ 7. The Standards of Weights and Measurements (Enforcement) Act, 1985 was enacted by the Government of India, to provide for enforcement of standards of weights and measure established under the Standards of Weights and Measurements Act, 1976 and for matters connected therewith. Chapter VII of the Act provides for 'Verification and Stamping of Weights or Measures'. The Standards of Weights and Measurements (Enforcement) Act, 1985 was enacted by the Government of India, to provide for enforcement of standards of weights and measure established under the Standards of Weights and Measurements Act, 1976 and for matters connected therewith. Chapter VII of the Act provides for 'Verification and Stamping of Weights or Measures'. In exercise of its power under Section 72, the State of Kerala have framed the Standards of Weights and Measures Enforcement Rules, 1992. Rule 14 provides for 'Periodical internal for the verification or weights or measures and specific provision has been made herein for verification of storage tanks. However, a perusal of Chapter VII of the Enforcement Act would show that the liability for verification and stamping is only in respect of any weight or measure in the possession or custody or control of any person in circumstances indicating that such weight or measure is being used by him in any transaction or for industrial production or for protection. The term 'weight or measure' is defined in Section 2(zd) of Standards of Weight and Measures Act, 1976 as a weight or measure specified by or under the 1976 Act and it includes a weighing or measuring instrument. The term 'weighing or measuring instrument' has been defined in Section 2(zc) as any object, instrument, apparatus or device, or any combination thereof, which is, or is intended to be, used, exclusively or additionally, for the purpose of making any weighment or measurement, and includes any appliance, accessory or part associated with any such object, instrument, apparatus or device. Therefore, for invoking the provisions requiring verification of stamping of storage tanks against the respondent, the primary requirement is that the appellants should satisfy themselves that the storage tank in question is a weight or measure in the possession of the appellants and that the same is being intended or likely used by them in any transaction or for industrial production or for protection. 8. Apart from the fact that the appellant is a manufacturer of various items as stated by us before, there is nothing before us to indicate that the appellants have either conducted any inspection or collected any materials indicating that the storage tanks in question would fall under the Enforcement Act. It was, therefore, that the learned Single Judge concluded that the impugned orders were issued without conducting any inspection. It was, therefore, that the learned Single Judge concluded that the impugned orders were issued without conducting any inspection. Such a conclusion of the learned Single Judge, on the facts as disclosed, cannot be said to be faulty. We, therefore, dispose of this appeal, directing that it will be open to the appellants to inspect the premises of the respondent. On such inspection if the appellants find that the storage tanks in question are weights or measures as provided in Section 24 of the Enforcement Act or Rule 14 of the Enforcement Rules 1992, it would be open to them to call upon the respondent to get the storage tanks verified and stamped in terms of the provisions contained in the Act and Rules mentioned above, levying fee and additional fee as prescribed under the Act or Rules, as the case may be. Such inspection shall be conducted, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that if on inspection as above it is found that the storage tanks are not liable to be verified, the amounts deposited by the appellants be refunded to them and if it is otherwise, the amount be appropriated accordingly.” 11. However by placing stress on the 8 th paragraph of the aforementioned judgment in W.A No.56/2014, the learned Government Pleader asserts that, the petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs sought for in the writ petition. 12. I have heard Sri.V. Krishna Menon, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Binoy Davis, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 13. Going into the merits of the case, it is apposite to look into the objective of the Act, i.e., in the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, it is specifically stated that “this is an Act to establish standards of weights and measures, to regulate inter-state trade or commerce in Weights, Measures and other goods which are sold or distributed by weight, measure or number and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”. As per Section 22 of the Enforcement Act, there is a prohibition of sale or use of unstamped weights or measures. Whereas in Section 24, it is confined to verification and stamping of weights and measures. As per Section 22 of the Enforcement Act, there is a prohibition of sale or use of unstamped weights or measures. Whereas in Section 24, it is confined to verification and stamping of weights and measures. Section 24 specifically provides that; “Every person having any weight or measure in his possession, custody or control in circumstances indicating that such weight or measure is being, or is in intended or likely to be, used by him in any transaction or for industrial or for protection shall, before putting such weight or measure into such use, have such weight or measure verified at such place and during such hours as the Controller may, by general or special order, specify in this behalf (‘ hereinafter referred to as specified place or specified time ) on payment of such fees as may be prescribed. 14. Going by the said provision, it can be seen that, the verification with respect to the weight or measure have to be done with respect to transactions commercial in nature. This position was well found by Para.7 of the judgment in W.A No56/2014. However, the other finding which is relayed by the Government Pleader which is in favour of the appellants therein can not be dragged into this case as the facts involved in this case is entirely different from the other. In that case, the storage tanks are used for the purpose of storing the raw materials for their commercial production whereas here in the case on hand, it is used only as a fuel for the purpose of igniting the furnace as well as for operating the diesel generator. Since the petitioner is manufacturing blood bags and contraceptives like Cu-T, under no circumstances, these products stored in the tanks are used as a raw material directly. 15. Under such circumstances, I cannot accept the contentions raised by the learned Government Pleader with respect to Para 8 of the judgment in W.A No.56/2014. Going by the objectives of the Act itself, it shows that it is intended purely for commercial transactions and not for domestic usage of the materials stored in the tanks in the premises of a particular person. The authorities who considered these aspects at the original stage, appellate stage as well as the revisional stage have not looked into the objective of the Act. Therefore, there is no proper application of mind. The authorities who considered these aspects at the original stage, appellate stage as well as the revisional stage have not looked into the objective of the Act. Therefore, there is no proper application of mind. Under such circumstances, I set aside Exts.P1 to P4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. In such circumstances, it is needless to say that, the amounts already paid by the petitioner has to be refunded within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.