IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24793 of 2006 Between: Nirmal Development and Welfare Society 7-1-42/3, Old Bus Stand, Nirmal Adilabad District, rep. by its President Mr. Syed Moizuddin S/o. Mr. Syed Zainulabeding aged 46 years ... PETITIONER AND 1. The District Collector, Adilabad Officeat Adilabad Town Adilabad District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o Nirmal Adilabad District. 3. The Municipal Commissioner Nirmal Municipality Nirmal, Adilabad District. 4. M/s. Ganga Packaged Drinking Water Budhavarpet, Nirmal, Adilabad District. 5. M/s. Amrutha Packaged Driniing Water Sufi Nagar, Nirmal, Adilabad District. 6. M/s. Surya Packaged Drinking Water Manjulapur, Nirmal Adilabad District. 7. M/s. Swarna Packaged Drinking Water Soan Village, Nirmal Adilabad District. 8. M/s. Gangotri Packaged Drinking WAter Soan Village, Nirmal, Adilabad District. 9. M/s. Nanda Packaged Drinking Water Gandhinagar, Nirmal Adilabad District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, more appropriately a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents to take action against the respondents Nos. 4 to 9 is illegal and void, consequently direct the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 take necessary legal action against the respondents Nos. 4 to 9 by preventing the sale of unhygienic mineral and packed drinking water in the interest of Justice and equity. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.M.QURESHI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: Order: (Per Sri R. Subhash Reddy, J) This writ petition is ﬁled in public interest by the petitioner, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 questioning the manufacturing activity of respondents 4 to 9, alleging that they are doing business in packaged drinking water without possessing valid certification. 2. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, it is stated that respondents 4 to 9 are doing business in packaged drinking water without obtaining any licence from the third respondent and certiﬁcation as required from the Bureau of Indian Standards. 3. When the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. However, as the writ petition is ﬁled in public interest, questioning the authority of respondents 4 to 9 in doing business in drinking water without obtaining required certiﬁcation, we enquired with the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. It is submitted that respondents 4 to 9 do not possess any certiﬁcate as required under Rule 49 (29) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 framed under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It is further submitted that respondents 4 to 9 do not also have any valid licence to do business of packaged drinking water. As per the rule referred above, it is clear that no business in drinking or potable water can be undertaken without possessing required certiﬁcation from the Bureau of Indian Standards. 4. As much as it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent-Municipality that respondents 4 to 9 have not obtained any such certiﬁcation, we dispose of the writ petition directing the third respondent to see that no business in drinking or potable water is undertaken by respondents 4 to 9 without possessing required certification/licence as required under law. 5. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. September 2, 2008 Grr/MRR