JHUNJHUNWALA VANASPATI LTD Vs. BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought for quashing the order dt. 11th May, 1990 (Annexure 16 to the petition), passed by the Director of the Bureau of Indian Standards, Lucknow directing the petitioner to send the industrial licence or a letter of indent from the Central Government and permission from Directorate of Vanaspati according approval to manufacture of Vanaspati by it within fourteen days, otherwise the application for the grant of licence will be treated as closed without any further correspondence, and further to direct the respondent to complete the processing of the application of the petitioner for the grant of licence to use the standards mark forthwith.

(2.) The petitioner is a public limited company and has established a manufacturing unit for the manufacture of Vanaspati ghee. The said unit has been granted provi-siona! registration certificate by the Director of Industries, U.P. as a small scale unit. On 20th Jan., 1989, and 19th Jan., 1990, the petitioner also obtained licence under the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licencing and Restriction on Holdings) Order, 1989 and the unit of the petitioner is also registered under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. According to the petitioner, its manufacturing unit has been completed and the production of Vanaspati ghee has also commenced. This manufacturing unit is further regulated by two control Orders, viz. Vegetable Oil Products Control Order, 1947, and Vegetable Oil Products (Standard of Quality) Order, 1975. Under cl. 14 of the Vegetable Oil Products Control Order, 1947, the Vegetable Oil Products Controller for India is empowered to specify the specification of container etc. In which the vegetable oil products is to be marketed. Under this clause every container of vegetable oil manufactured by the petitioner is required to specify apart from other details, the I.S.I, certification mark specified under the Indian Standards Institution (Certification Marks) Act, 1952. Thereafter the Central Government issued Vegetable Oil Products (Standards of Quality) Order, 1975, by means of a notification dt. 30th May, 1975, which was further amended by means of a notification dt. 4th July, 1985, with effect from 1st October, 1985. As per the petitioner's case the only restriction under the aforesaid Order of 1975 as amended in respect of vegetable oil product is that the same should conform to the I.S.I. specifications for Vanaspati Ghee and shall carry the I.S.I. Certification mark. The petitioner contends that Vanaspati Ghee manufactured by the petitioner is in full conformity with the I.S.I. specification for Vanaspati. Before the 1952 Act, the Indian Standards Institution was set up in pursuance of a resolution of the Government of India dt. 3rd Sept., 1946. The aforesaid 1952 Act did not contain any provision requiring compulsory user of the standard mark with regard to any particular article, nor did it confer any power upon the Institution to notify any article or process so as to require compulsory licence or compulsory user of the Standard Mark.

(3.) Then, in the year 1986, the Parliament promulgated the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986, which established a Bureau under the name of Bureau of Indian Standards as statutory corporation and repealed the 1952 Act. S. 10 of 1986 Act confers power on the Bureau to specify the standard marks and to grant licence for the use of the standard mark. According to the petitioner, the authorities informed under the Control Orders, referred to above, that it would be necessary to put I.S.I. certification mark on the items for sate and for that it would be necessary to obtain licence. On that basis, the petitioner applied on the 6th Feb., 1990, for the grant of licence for use of standard mark before the Director of Bureau of Indian Standards Lucknow. Thereafter the petitioner was required to submit an application in triplicate along with the draft of Rs. 500/- which was done by the petitioner on the 7th Mar., 1990. On the 14th Mar., 1990 a communication was received from the Deputy Director that preliminary inspection would be conducted on 3rd Apr., 1990. The petitioner's case is that in spite of the said letter the petitioner's application remained pending till this date, and no further follow up action has been taken by the respondents. In fact, no inspection was conducted on the 3rd Apr., 1990 as referred in the previous letter from the respondent or on any subsequent date.