Authority: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

Order Date: 17/06/2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: M/s. Narsingh Ispat Limited (industrial unit manufacturing iron and steel products) represented by Director Sri Ajay Singh.
  • Respondents: State of Jharkhand and three officials of the Legal Metrology Department (Controller, Assistant Controller, Inspector).
  • Writ petition (W.P.(C) No.382 of 2020) filed seeking declaration that Rule 23(4) & 23(6) of the Jharkhand Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011 are being mis‑interpreted to compel the petitioner to purchase and keep in stock secondary weights equal to 50% or one‑third of the capacity of its weighbridges.
  • Background: The petitioner operates two electronic weighbridges of 60 MT and 80 MT capacity. It obtained verification certificates earlier but, from 2015 onward, despite applications for renewal, verification was not carried out and a demand notice (No.26 dated 05.07.2021, received on 27.07.2021) was issued demanding Rs 10,40,191 for verification and stamping of weights.
  • The petitioner argued that Rule 23(4) requires keeping verified weights equal to one‑tenth of the instrument’s capacity (or up to one tonne) for consumer verification, whereas Rule 23(6) merely obliges the user to provide (not own) verified weights not exceeding one‑third of the capacity when the Legal Metrology Officer conducts verification, re‑verification or inspection.
  • The State contended that both rules must be read together and that the petitioner must own the one‑third weights and pay the associated fees.
  • The Court examined the definitions of “verification”, “stamp”, and the statutory provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (Sections 2(v), 2(t), 24, 53) and the detailed wording of Rules 15, 16, 17 and 23(4) & 23(6).
  • The Court observed that Rule 23(4) imposes a duty to keep secondary weights on‑site equal to one‑tenth of capacity (or up to one tonne) and that these weights must be verified and stamped; ownership is implied because they are to be kept permanently.
  • Rule 23(6) is a special provision for instruments of 500 kg or more, requiring the user to provide verified weights not exceeding one‑third of capacity only at the time of inspection; the rule does not mandate ownership of such weights.
  • Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner is not legally bound to purchase the secondary weights under Rule 23(6), though it must maintain the weights required under Rule 23(4).

Final Outcome

  • The demand notice No.26 dated 05.07.2021 demanding Rs 10,40,191 is set aside.
  • The petition is allowed.
  • The respondents may issue a fresh demand only for verification and stamping fees pertaining to the weights that the petitioner must keep under Rule 23(4).
  • No fees can be levied for weights supplied only for inspection under Rule 23(6) if those weights are not owned by the petitioner.

Topics: Legal Metrology, Weight Verification