2010 (5) TMI 956 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Section 14 of the BIS Act and Rule 49 (28) of the PFA Rules.
2. Discrepancies in inspection reports by BIS and PFA Department.
3. Applicability of PFA Rules and BIS Act to packaged drinking water.
4. Responsibility of BIS and PFA authorities in enforcing standards.
5. Formation of a task force to ensure compliance.

Summary:

1. Violation of Section 14 of the BIS Act and Rule 49 (28) of the PFA Rules:
The petitioner, Bottled Water Processors Association, sought directions against various authorities including UOI, DG PFA, DG BIS, and GNCTD to take action u/s 14 of the BIS Act and Rule 49 (28) of the PFA Rules against units manufacturing and selling packaged drinking water without a license and BIS Certification Mark. The petitioner alleged that many units in Delhi were selling packaged drinking water without complying with these norms.

2. Discrepancies in inspection reports by BIS and PFA Department:
The court noted discrepancies in the inspection reports of the BIS and the PFA Department. While BIS found several units operational, the PFA Department reported them as "not functioning." The court directed the SDM to take immediate corrective action if units were found operating in violation of the law.

3. Applicability of PFA Rules and BIS Act to packaged drinking water:
The court rejected the PFA Department's plea that no action could be taken against manufacturers or sellers of packaged drinking water if it did not carry the BIS Mark or the required label. The court emphasized that the purpose of the statutes would be defeated if action was taken only against units conforming to the standards laid down.

4. Responsibility of BIS and PFA authorities in enforcing standards:
The court underscored the responsibility of BIS to take effective corrective action for violations of the BIS Act. It was noted that if BIS faced a shortage of staff, it should be addressed with additional staff and better coordination among authorities. The court clarified that remedies under the BIS Act and the PFA Act are independent and one does not exclude the other.

5. Formation of a task force to ensure compliance:
The court directed the formation of a task force by the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, comprising senior representatives from the Department of PFA, BIS, GNCTD, and Delhi Police. This task force would coordinate among departments, conduct surprise checks, and initiate strict action against units violating the PFA and BIS Acts.

Conclusion:
The petition was disposed of with directions to ensure compliance with the BIS and PFA Acts, emphasizing timely action to prevent waterborne diseases, especially during summer months.