Compounding for packaged commodity declaration breaches upheld under central rules; state enforcement rules did not govern the offence.

The compounding amount for breach of pre-packaged commodity declaration requirements was governed by Rule 32(3) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, because the central regime specifically prescribed compounding for contraventions under the Act, while the Delhi Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011 did not provide a comparable mechanism for this offence. Rule 32(3) was also upheld as intra vires the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, since the Act authorised compounding up to the statutory ceiling linked to the maximum fine for the offence. The writ petition therefore failed and the compounding demand was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the compounding amount for contravention of the packaged commodities declaration requirements was governed by Rule 32(3) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 or by Rule 25 and Schedule XI of the Delhi Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011; (ii) Whether Rule 32(3) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 was ultra vires the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.

Issue (i): Whether the compounding amount for contravention of the packaged commodities declaration requirements was governed by Rule 32(3) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 or by Rule 25 and Schedule XI of the Delhi Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011.

Analysis: The offence alleged arose from non-compliance with the declarations required on pre-packaged commodities under the central packaged commodities regime. Section 48 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 permits compounding of offences punishable under Section 36 on payment of such sum as may be prescribed, and the central rules specifically prescribe compounding amounts for contraventions covered by Section 36(1). The Delhi rules did not contain a comparable provision governing declarations on pre-packaged commodities or compounding of such contraventions. The central rules therefore constituted the specific and applicable compounding framework for the offence in question.

Conclusion: The applicable compounding amount was governed by Rule 32(3) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, and not by Rule 25 and Schedule XI of the Delhi Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011.

Issue (ii): Whether Rule 32(3) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 was ultra vires the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.

Analysis: Section 52(3) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 empowers the Central Government to provide that a breach of rules made under that section shall be punishable up to Rs. 5,000/-. That provision concerns penal consequences for breach of rules, whereas Section 48 separately authorises compounding of offences and limits the compounding amount by reference to the maximum fine prescribed under the Act for the offence. Since Section 36(1) itself prescribes a maximum fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the first offence, the compounding amount fixed at Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 32(3) was within the statutory ceiling and consistent with the Act. The asserted conflict was therefore unfounded.

Conclusion: Rule 32(3) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 was not ultra vires the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on merits, as the central packaged commodities rules validly governed compounding and the impugned compounding demand was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the parent Act specifically authorises compounding and caps the amount by reference to the maximum fine for the offence, a delegated rule prescribing the compounding amount up to that ceiling is valid and prevails over a general state-level compounding provision that does not specifically govern the contravention.

---