Pre-packed commodity rules apply to retail cartons, and separate notifications for each goods class are not required.

Section 1(3)(d) of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 was construed as not requiring a separate notification for each class of goods before the packaged commodities regime could operate; the notification bringing the relevant provisions into force was sufficient, and the rules remained applicable. Shoes packed in cartons for retail sale were treated as pre-packed commodities under the Act and Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977, so the declaration requirements, including retail sale price, applied. Harmonious construction of the Act and Rules supported consumer protection and standardised retail pricing, and the absence of price-inclusive declarations made the challenge fail.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Section 1(3)(d) of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 required separate notifications for each class of goods before the packaged commodities rules could apply; (ii) whether shoes packed in cartons for retail sale were pre-packed commodities subject to the declaration requirements, including retail sale price, under the Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977.

Issue (i): whether Section 1(3)(d) of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 required separate notifications for each class of goods before the packaged commodities rules could apply.

Analysis: The notification bringing into force Sections 1, 2, 3, 39 and 83 of the Act was held sufficient to extend the statutory scheme to classes of goods by notification of dates, and not to require a fresh notification for every new class of goods. A purposive construction was preferred over the restrictive application of ejusdem generis, because the legislative object was consumer protection and standardisation of retail pricing. The enabling power under Section 83 supported the making of the rules, and the rules were not rendered inapplicable for want of a separate commodity-specific notification.

Conclusion: Separate notifications for each class of goods were not required, and the Act and Rules applied.

Issue (ii): whether shoes packed in cartons for retail sale were pre-packed commodities subject to the declaration requirements, including retail sale price, under the Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977.

Analysis: Section 2(b) of the Act and Rule 2(l) of the Rules were construed harmoniously. The definition of pre-packed commodity was treated as exhaustive for the purposes of the Rules, and subordinate legislation was held not to override the parent Act, but to give it workable effect. Shoes packed in cartons as single units meant for retail sale fell within the expression pre-packed commodity, even if the package was opened for customer testing. Rule 2A and Rule 3 extended Chapter II to such retail packages, and Rule 6 required declarations including retail sale price. The absence of the price inclusive of taxes made the impugned action valid.

Conclusion: The petitioner's shoes were covered by the Act and Rules, and the declaration requirements applied.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the applicability of the statutory scheme and the impugned notices failed, and the writ petitions were dismissed as lacking merit.

Ratio Decidendi: A package containing a product meant for retail sale falls within the statutory and rule-based regime for pre-packed commodities, and Section 1(3)(d) does not require a separate notification for every individual class of goods to attract that regime.

---