Bureau Of Indian Standards vs Bottled Water Processors ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 1029 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+               L.P.A. No. 612/2010


Bureau of Indian Standards             ....Appellant
                 Through Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate.

                             VERSUS

Bottled Water Processors Association & Ors. .....Respondents
                Through Mr. Rama Ahluwalia, Advocate for
                            Respondent No. 1.
                            Ms. Ruchir Mishra, Advocate for
                            Respondent No. 2.
                            Ms. Zeenat Masoosi for Mr. Najmi
                            Waziri, Standing Counsel for GNCTD

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

% 21.02.2011

The appellant, Bureau of Indian Standards has filed the present

appeal against the judgment dated 20th May, 2010 passed in Writ

Petition (Civil) No. 11672/2009, M/s Bottled Water Processors

Association vs. Union of India & Ors. The appellant is aggrieved by the

following observations/directions given in the impugned judgment.

"22. It is made clear that for violation of relevant provisions of the BIS Act, there is an independent remedy available under that Act. The remedy for violation of the BIS is

also available in terms of the PFA Act. One remedy does not exclude the other.

....

24. The action is sought to be taken against all the relevant units manufacturing and selling packaged drinking water without a licence and without a BIS Certification Mark. In order to ensure the letter and spirit of the law, a task force be constituted by the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare comprising a senior representative of the Department of PFA and the BIS, GNCTD both nominated by their respective Director Generals and a Senior Representative of the Delhi Police within a period of two weeks from today. The task force will co-ordinate amongst the various departments and constitute special crack units which will undertake surprise checks at various locations of manufacturers of packaged drinking water and initiate strict action in terms of the provisions contained under the PFA as well as the BIS Act and the Rules made under those Statutes."

2. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Bureau of Indian

Standards Act, 1986 are two separate enactments. Violation of the two

enactments have to be dealt with separately and by the authorities who

have been give duty and responsibility to enforce the said enactment.

However, at the same time, it cannot be denied that there is some

inter-play between the enactments and need for coordination between

the authorities who have been given the responsibility to enforce the

enactments. Rule 49(28) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules,

1955 makes the use of BIS mark for packaged drinking water

mandatory. The said certification is given by the appellant on being

satisfied about the quality and on meeting the specifications stipulated

by them. A fraudulent and wrong use of marks attracts Section 14 read

with Section 43 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986. Violation

of the said section is punishable with imprisonment which may extend

to one year and fine which may extend to Rs.5,000/- or both. Under

Section 34 of the said Act, courts cannot take cognizance except on a

complaint by or under the authority of the Government or the Bureau,

any consumer or a recognized association. It is in these circumstances,

that the aforesaid observations/directions have been given. The object

and purpose is to ensure proper coordination between the two

authorities. The object and purpose is not to ask the authorities under

the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986, to perform job or work of the

authorities under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 or vice

versa.

3. We may note that at the time of hearing, an order dated 28th

June, 2010, was placed before us. This is an order by the Food Safety

and Standards Authority of India, Ministry of Health and Family

Welfare. Pursuant to the directions given in the impugned judgment, a

task force has been constituted consisting of officers from BIS, New

Delhi, Delhi Police and Local (Health) Authority, Department of

Prevention of Food Adulteration.

4. In view of the aforesaid position, we do not see any need and

necessity to pass any further order or directions. The appeal is

accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE February 21, 2011 kkb