TIKENDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter was taken up for hearing today, on mentioning, at the request of the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Percy Kavina appearing for the petitioner.

(2.) HEARD Mr. Percy Kavina, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in detail.

(3.) MR . Percy Kavina, learned Senior Counsel brought to my notice the order of conviction dated 20.02.2010 made in C.R. No. 700 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 3rd Court, Midnapore Sadar (W.B.) and the order of the Calcutta High Court dated 05.02.2010 made in W.P. No. 16603 (W) of 2009 with W.P. 14315 (W) of 2009 with W.P. 12814 (W) of 2009. According to Mr. Percy Kavina, learned Senior Counsel, in spite of the said orders, the 4th respondent is proceeding with manufacturing and marketing of Ductile Iron Pipes in violation of provisions of Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 and the 2nd respondent Bureau of Indian Standards has also not taken any action against the 4th respondent. But still, the 1st respondent is purchasing the sub-standard Ductile Iron Pipes manufactured and marketed by 4th respondent for the public consumption.