YASH POLYMERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the course of admission hearing, the petitioners have proposed an amendment to the prayer clause and that proposed amendment is taken into consideration.

(2.) 24 petitioners, claiming to be engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and distributing pneumatic tubes made of natural rubber for two and three -wheelers, have invoked Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 226 of the Constitution for the prayers to set aside the Pneumatic Tyres and Tubes for Automotive Vehicles (Quality Control) Order, 2009 as far as it covers pneumatic tubes made of natural rubber for two -wheelers and three -wheelers. The petitioners have also prayed for directing respondent No.2, Bureau of Indian Standards, to review the IS:13098:1991 for revising the same as envisaged under Rule 7 (6) (g) of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987. By the proposed amendment, a prayer is added to declare the aforesaid Order to be unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution insofar as it relates to pneumatic tubes made of natural rubber for two or three -wheelers.

(3.) It was vehemently argued by learned senior Advocate Mr. K. M. Patel, appearing for the petitioners, that the Bureau of Indian Standards ("BIS", for short) has adopted Indian Standard Specification No.13090 for pneumatic tubes and affirmed them in the year 2001. Those standards were admittedly based on Japanese Standard JIS D 4231:1987 = JIS K 6367 which were meant for specific athletic use of motorcycle, as confirmed by a Japanese Body in reply to a query made by BIS. The Government of India in its Ministry of Commerce and Industry has issued impugned Order dated 19.11.2009 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 14 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 ("the Act", for short), after consulting BIS, and prescribed the standards for pneumatic tubes which are arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and amounting to unreasonable restriction, according to the submission. Elaborating the submission, learned Counsel submitted that even after notification of the impugned Order on 19.11.2009, the Government was pleased to hold meetings for reviewing implementation of the Order in view of the representations made by small scale manufacturers of pneumatic tubes made of natural rubber for two and three -wheeler vehicles. At the 18th meeting of Automotive Tyres/Tubes and Rims Sectional Committee, held on 11.5.2010, it was decided to set up a Panel for submitting recommendations alongwith technical justification on the issue of revising IS 13098:1991. Thereafter meetings of the Panel were held in July and August. On 29.01.2011, at the 19th meeting of the Committee, it was decided to undertake a study for evaluating the validated data by technical expert institutions, like Central Institute of Road Transport and Indian Rubber Manufacturers Research Association. Thereafter, several requests and representations were made for reviewing the matter of prescribing standards and implementation of the impugned Order as far as pneumatic tubes made of natural rubber for two or three -wheelers were concerned. It was, on that basis, submitted that while the Government had already extended the date for coming into force of the impugned Order, it was necessary and proper that the date now due for enforcing the impugned Order should be further extended till the Committee made its final recommendations and the Government considered it. It was also argued that IS 13098 was adopted in the impugned Order straightaway from the Japanese Standards which were admittedly prescribed for athletic use of motorcycles (for automotive tubes, moto -cross). Thus, the prescription of standards was without application of mind, according to the submission. It was also argued that while prescribing the standards for pneumatic tyres and pneumatic tubes at the same time, the tyres were divided into three classes with different specifications, whereas all the tubes for all automotive vehicles were put in one class for prescribing their specifications. That was a discrimination, according to the submission. It was further argued that, even according to the BIS Rules, 1987, all established standards have to be reviewed periodically, at least once in five years, to determine the need for revision or withdrawal; and the standards, which, in the opinion of the Selectional Committee, need no revision or amendment, have to be re - affirmed by the Committee under Rule 7 (6) (g). This process of re -affirmation was not carried out since the year 2001, according to the submission, and hence the impugned Order was prescribing outdated standards. He also submitted that while deliberations of the Committee appointed for the purpose of reviewing the standards pursuant to the representations of the tube manufacturers were inconclusive, it was improper and unreasonable to enforce the impugned Order with effect from 13.5.2011, which is the next appointed date. Learned Counsel also submitted that the prescription of standards as aforesaid and the impugned Order placed an unreasonable restriction upon the fundamental right of the petitioners to carry on their business and as an actual effect of enforcement of the impugned Order, many of the manufacturing units of tube made of natural rubber may face closure of their business. Learned Counsel relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in B.P.Sharma v. Union of India [AIR 2003 SC 3863] to emphasize the following propositions contained therein : -