S.R. Gupta vs Director, Bureau Of Indian ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 130 Del

*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+    W.P.(C) 16578/2006

     S.R.GUPTA                          ..... Petitioner
                       Through Petitioner in person.

                 versus

    DIRECTOR BUREAU OF INDIAN STAN & ORS....
Respondents
                Through Mr. R.K. Tripathi, Advocate for
                respondent No. 1.
                Mr. Rahul Dhawan & Mr. Srivenkatesh,
                Advocates for respondent No. 2-BSES
                Yamuna.

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

              ORDER

% 16.01.2009

1. This petition filed in public interest seeks a declaration that the

licence issued by Bureau of Indian Standards to M/s Shenzhen Kaifa

Tech. Co. of China is illegal, unconstitutional and against the

mandatory provisions of Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 and

Rules and Regulations framed thereunder and also the scheme for

issue of Licence to a Foreign Manufacturer.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the meters manufactured

by M/s Shenzhen Kaifa Tech. Co. of China have been tampered with

at the manufacturing stage itself and the respondents should be

directed to immediately discard all Chinese meters installed in the N.C.T. of Delhi forthwith.

3. It is seen from the affidavit filed by the Bureau of Indian

Standards that the licence was issued to the said company in

accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules and Regulations

framed thereunder. All procedures prescribed by the Rules are

followed, inspection was carried out and thereafter the necessary

licence was issued in favour of the Chinese manufacturer.

4. It appears that the petitioner had filed a complaint before the

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum against respondent No.

2 Discom complaining that the new meter installed in the premises of

the petitioner was not recording the correct reading and the meter

was spurious. The District Consumer Redressal Forum directed the

respondent No. 2 Discom to install a pilot meter on the connection of

the consumer and report the reading/load recorded by both the

meters so that the grievance can be addressed immediately. In

compliance with this direction, a pilot meter was installed and reading

in both the meters was recorded and the report was prepared stating

that the reading in both meters was same and the meter installed at

the premises of the petitioner was correct. Consequently, the District

Consumer Redressal Forum on 25th July, 2006 has dismissed the

complaint filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has thereafter filed

the present Public Interest Litigation by repeating the same allegations.

5. In our view, this Public Interest Litigation is ill-conceived,

frivolous and abuse of process of law. We dismiss the petition with

costs of Rs.5,000/-, which will be paid by the petitioner to the

respondent no.1.

CHIEF JUSTICE

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

JANUARY 16, 2009 VKR/NA