Disposed

Sara Aqua Minerals, v. the Bureau of Indian Standards

Madras HC1 Sept 2014WP(MD)/13230/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a writ petition seeking renewal of an expired ISI mark license for packaged drinking water. The court directed the Bureau of Indian Standards to inspect the petitioner's premises within four weeks to verify compliance with regulations before considering the renewal application.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to inspect the petitioner's business premises within four weeks to verify compliance and then consider the application for renewal of the mark license.

Sara Aqua Minerals, Vs the Bureau of Indian… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.09.2014

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.13230 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2014

¶6

Sara Aqua Minerals, Rep.by its Proprietrix S.Theen

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Bureau of Indian Standards, Rep.by its Director (MARKS), Southern Regional Office, CIT Campus, IV Cross road, Taramani, Chennai 600 113.

¶10

2.The Designated Officer, Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in MDC-1/L-6638382 dated 07.12.2011 on the file of the 1^st respondent and its consequential order dated 21.07.2014 on the file of the 2^nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to inspect the business premises and conduct enquiry and renew the mark license.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, ASG for R1 Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader for R2

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in MDC-1/L-6638382 dated 07.12.2011 on the file of the 1^st respondent and its consequential order dated 21.07.2014 on the file of the 2^nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the 1^st respondent to inspect the business https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ premises and conduct enquiry and renew the mark license.

¶15

¶16

2.The petitioner is engaged in the distribution and supply of packaged drinking water having established their company during 2007. The petitioner was issued ISI standard mark, by which, they are entitled to market the packaged drinking water. The ISI mark was extended periodically and the last of such extension came to an end on 02.01.2012. Thereafter, it has not been extended. As pointed out by the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the 1^st respondent that in terms of regulation No.17 of the Good Safety and Standard (Prohibition and Restriction on Sales) Regulations, 2011 no person shall manufacture, sell or exhibit for sale of packaged drinking water except under Bureau of Indian Standard Certificate.

¶17

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after 2012 the petitioner has submitted an application for renewal. Since the application was not considered and no orders have been passed for the past 3 years, the petitioner is not manufacturing the packaged drinking water. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board had drawn samples from the petitioner’s unit and issued a test report dated 07.08.2014 stating that the sample is chemically potable and bacteriologically not contaminated. Armed with this test report, the petitioner seeks for renewal of licence by the 1^st respondent under the aforesaid regulations.

¶18

4.The impugned order was passed in 2011. Therefore, at this stage, the question of setting aside the impugned order does not arise, since there is a statutory bar under the regulation and the petitioner shall not market or display or sale any packaged drinking water without BSI certification.

¶19

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even prior to cancellation, the petitioner should have been issued notice. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be rejected for more than one reason. Firstly, the petitioner is marketing packaged drinking water, which should strictly confirm to the standards prescribed, otherwise, it will jeopardize the general public who purchase the water. At all times, the petitioner should comply with the regulations and they should be open for any surprise inspection. Therefore, in such circumstances, the question of issuing prior notice before action being taken may not be applicable under all circumstances. Surprise inspections and drawing of samples for testing are required to be done to ensure that the provisions of the regulations are strictly adhere to.

¶20

6.In any event, the impugned proceedings having been passed in 2011 and the petitioner admits that he has not been carrying on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ business for the past 2 years, this Court is of the view that the 1^st respondent shall cause an inspection of the petitioner’s unit

¶21

¶22

and after satisfying themselves that the petitioner has complied with all the conditions prescribed, then proceed to consider the petitioner’s application for grant of licence. The inspection shall be conducted by the 1^st respondent as expeditiously preferably within a period four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the petitioner shall extend full cooperation for such inspection and produce all materials as called for by the 1^st respondent.

¶23

7.The Writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently,

¶24

connected M.Ps. are closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(C.O.,)

¶27

/True Copy/

¶28

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

1.The Director (MARKS), Southern Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Standards, CIT Campus, IV Cross road, Taramani, Chennai 600 113.

¶31

2.The Designated Officer, Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department, Madurai District.

¶32

+1cc to Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, Advocate, in SR. No.49257/14.

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.13230 of 2014 01.09.2014

¶34

nbj msm 18.09.2014 p3/4c

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Sara Aqua Minerals, v. the Bureau of Indian Standards

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sara Aqua Minerals, v. the Bureau of Indian Standards

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeppiaar, Vs the District Collector

Kamatchiamma Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Poornamayan Vs the Superintendent of Police

P. Eswari Vs the Superintendent of

P. Senthil Ganesh, Vs the Joint Registrar

K.Selvendran Vs the Distric Collector