-{-+-_ _. •` -Lt lN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM CIVIL JUFllsDICTION / ,."P (C) (PIL) No .... „ .............. „ ....... w ....1.€ ........................ „ ...... Of20..}1.. Tlkendra Sharma Versus State Of Sllcklm & Or.. -AppelLae+ For For I(rI A.hok pradhan Petitioner (Advocate (s)) Bespondent _givgit®Party (Advocate (s)) Serial No. 01. 18.0 jk SGPG- .llP I/ High Courv 2000 esent: Nos./ 2.4.2009 -AppeHentgrfe) Petitioner (s) F`espondent (s) 6ppositapeniyis) Mr...B.Pradhaa.AddlAdvceat.a a.-Oral with ¥E:::=:::::::8#*d^ja=a=:teandm.§.K. Order (s) with Signature (s) BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN Mr. Percy Kavina, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashok Pradhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Karma Thinlay Namgyal, Government Advocate for respondent No.1. Detail Judgment, vide separate sheets. The writ petition stands disposed of. LEI-. Chief Justice 18.03.2011 iE ® IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM AT GANGTOK (CIVIL EXTRA ORDINARY JURISDICTION) DATED : 18.03.2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN, CHIEF JUSTICE quife±£)IE!±n!QL±4pLZQ±± Tikendra Sharma, Son of Late K.N. Sharma, R/o Upper Sichey, P.S. & P.O. Gangtok, Sikkim. Petitioner 4. -versus- State of Sikkim, Through Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Gangtok. Bureau of Indian Standards through Deputy Director General (Eastern Region), 1/14, CIT Scheme-VII M, VIP Road, Kankurgachi, Kolkata-700 054. Dlrector General of Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhawan, 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002. Tata Metaliks Kubota Pipes Limited, A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its office at Tata Centre, 43, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata-700 071. .. Respondents JT!TEy-.:. For the petitioner For respondent No. 1 Mr. Percy Kavina, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashok Pradhan, Advocate. Mr. Karma Thinlay Namgyal, Government Advocate. I- Dinakaran, CJ The matter was taken up for hearing today, on mentioning,at the request of the learned Senior Counsel Mr Percy Kavina appearing for the petltioner, 2. Heard Mr. Percy Kavina, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in detail. 3. The petltioner has set the above Publlc Interest Litigation on motion with a specific plea that the 4th respondent is manufacturlng and marketing Ductile Iron Pipes (D.I. Pipes) in violatlon of standards prescrlbed under the Bureau of lndlan Standards Act, 1986 and the State of Slkkim, the lst respondent hereln, have also purchased such sub-standard Ductile Iron Plpes for the public consumption and, therefore, the petitioner seeks that: (a) the State of Sikkim, the respondent No. 1 herein, be forthwlth restrained from purchaslng D.I. Pipes from Tata Metaliks Kubota Pipes Ltd., respondent No. 4 herein and respondent No. 4 be further directed to withdraw pipes bearing fake IS marks which are sold and supplied by it to respondent No. 1 whlch are used for supply'ng drinking water to people of Sikkim; (b) respondent Nos. 2 and 3 be directed to forthwith cancel B.I.S. Llcense granted to Tata Metaliks Kubota Pipes Limited, respondent No. 4 herein, and be further pleased to direct respondent No. 4 herein not to use or apply IS Mark tin further order as may be passed by this Hon'ble Court; (c) respondent No. 1 be directed to blacklist Tata Metallks Kubota Plpes Limited, respondent No. 4 here'n, from particlpating in tender process of any nature whatsoever of respondent No. 1, In the larger public interest as well as public health; (d) to direct respondent authorities to initiate prosecution against Tata Metaliks Kubota Plpes Ltd., respondent No. 4 herein, under the provislons of India Penal Code more partlcularly Sections 467 and 420 for applying fake IS Marks and selling substandard DI Plpes to respondent No.1; and (e) pending the petition, an appropriate order be passed restraining respondent-BIS Authonties from ffiir granting licence under the BIS Act to respondent No. 4 and the Hon'ble Court further be pleased to restrain respondent No. 4 from partlcipating in any tender process undertaken by respondent No.1. 4, 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 Judlcial Maglstrate, 1St class, 3rd CourL 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 wlth W.P. 14315 (W) of 2009 with WP 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 Plpes in violation of Provlslons of Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 and the 2nd respondent Bureau of Indian Standards has also not taken any action agalnst the 4th respondent. But stlH, the lst respondent is purchasing the sub-standard Ductlle Iron Pipes manufactured and marketed by 4th respondent for the public consumption. 5. Hence, the above public Interest Litigation. 6. Heard Mr. Karma Thinlay Namgyal, learned Government Advocate on behalf of the lst respondent. Ir- -- 7. Admittedly, the learned Senlor Counsel Mr, Percy Kavlna appearlng for the petitioner fairly conceded that the petitioner has not made any complaint to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 twh date; nor made any representation to the respondent No. 1 in this regard. If that be the case, I am of the considered opinlon that it may not be proper for this Court to entertain the above Publlc Interest Litlgation at this stage, untH the competent authority under the provislons of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986, Rules and Regulations made thereunder take appropriate decision as to whether the Ductile Iron Plpes alleged to have been manufactured and marketed by the 4th respondent devold of standards prescribed under the provisions of the sald Act, Rules and Regulations. 8. Notice to the contestlng respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 is dispensed wlth, as I do not propose to go into the rnerlts of the case; nor propose to render any adverse finding against the sald respondents. 9. Hence, wlthout golng into other merits of the case, suffice it to permlt the petitioner to approach the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by appropriate complaint ralsing aH the contentions that ralsed in the present writ petltlon or any other grounds as deemed fit and necessary under the clrcumstances of the case, invoklng the statutory provislons under the Act, Rules and ZEL-- Regulations and seek appropriate remedy before them, If they are so pleased. In the event of such complaint is made to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 or any other competent authority prescrlbed under the Act, Rules and Regulations, such authority sha„ after due notice to the 4th respondent in compl`ance with statutory provlsions and principles of natural ]ustlce, hold an enquiry and take appropriate decision in the matter, Independently, in accordance with law, not being influenced by the disposal of this wnt petition, within 90 (ninety) days from the date of receipt of such complaint and communicate the same to lst respondent herein. On receipt of such decision of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 or any other competent authority and the representation of the petitioner, the lst respondent shaH take appropnate decision in the matter within 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt oF such representation oF the petitioner. 10. The respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 shaH report the conipliance of this order to the Court. The writ petition is d.isposed of accordingly, No cost. Index Internet lk T, (PDD k CJ)