IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4484 of 2004 Between: M/s. Annapurna Bottling, 10-15-43, Santhi Nagar,Opp.Brindavan Colony, Kavali, Nellore District, Rep. by its Proprietor, Sri B.V. Ranga Rao, S/o. Bapaiah, aged about 40 Years, R/o. Kavali, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Gazetted Food Inspector, O/o the Gazetted Food Inspector, 26 II/2403, Vedayapalem, Nellore-4. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo. No.66/NLR/02, dt.8-9-2003 issued by the respondent herein in ignorance of the orders of this Hon'ble Court in WPMP No.9121/2001 in WP.No.7166/2001 and batch as illegal, arbitrary and capricious and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act 1986 and also the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the above said Memo. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.VENKATA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMI.WELFARE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4484 of 2004 ORDER: In this writ petition, M/s.Annapurna Bottling, a proprietary concern, engaged in the business of marketing and manufacturing of mineral packaged drinking water, is the petitioner, seeking declaration that the action of the respondents herein in insisting upon the petitioner for production of Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) Certiﬁcate and interfering with the manufacturing process and business activities of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. This Court while admitting the writ petition passed interim orders in WPMP No.5875 of 2004 directing the respondents not to interfere with the manufacturing process of mineral water and packaged drinking water and business activities of the petitioner by insisting BIS Certiﬁcate, pending disposal of writ petition. When the matter is called today, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents brought to my notice that all the questions raised herein were considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Krishna Foods & Agro Minerals v Government of India[1] and the contentions of the petitioner were negatived. Insofar as the applicability of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act, for brevity) to water is concerned, the Division Bench having regard to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and other the relevant provisions, laid down as under: It is thus clear that water, which is excluded from the deﬁnition of ‘food’ in Section 2(v) of the PFA Act, is ordinary water, which is clearly distinguishable from all kinds of ‘mineral water’ or ‘natural water’ and ‘packaged drinking water’ which may derive from any source of potable water subjected to treatments etc. Therefore, the notiﬁcation issued by the Central Government dated 29-03-2001 declaring ‘packaged drinking water’ as ‘food’ for the purposes of provisions of the PFA Act, in no manner amounts to amending the provisions of the PFA Act as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The article of ‘packaged drinking water’ is added as an additional item as ‘food’ for the purposes of the PFA Act in view of its nature and substance etc. The ‘packaged drinking water’ as deﬁned hereinabove is comprehensive in its term, which takes into account the water that, is being manufactured and processed by the petitioners’ companies. The impugned amendments, in our considered opinion, cannot be characterised as arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and unjust as complained by the petitioners. The Division Bench also came to conclusion that the previous consultation with Bureau of Indian Standards is not required when the standard for articles is prescribed by BIS. The relevant observations made therein are as follows: That a reading of Section 2(a) together with 2(g) of the BIS Act makes it abundantly clear that the requirement of use of standard mark for article and process is not conﬁned to articles or process manufactured or produced by the scheduled industry alone. The requirement of previous consultation with the Bureau by the Central Government as is required under Section 14 of the Act is only with reference to the article or process of the scheduled industry and not with regard to other articles. Therefore, following the Division Bench judgment in Krishna Foods & Agro Minerals (supra), the writ petition is dismissed. _____________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) November 10, 2008. YS To 1. The Gazetted Food Inspector, O/o the Gazetted Food Inspector, 26 II/2403, Vedayapalem, Nellore-4. 2. Two CCs to Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare, High Court Buildings. Hyderabad. 3. Two C.D. copies. [1] 2004(6) ALD 338 (DB)