IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 8661 of 2007 Between: M/s. Ghori Acqua & Beverages Industries, A partnership firm having its Registered Office at No. 1768, Road No. 12 Banjara HIlls, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Partner Mohammed Mujahid Ghori S/o. Nabi Ghori, Aged about 34 Years, R/o. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Bureau of Indian Standards, Rep. by its Director General, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah Zaffar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002. 2 The Bureau of Indian Standards, Rep. by its Director, Hyderabad Branch Office, No. 5-8-56, F & G, LN Gupta Marg, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad - 500 001. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus: (a) Declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent bearing No. HBO/PDW/Legal dated 13-3-2007 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations; 1988 and (b) declare the inaction of the respondents in processing the application of the petitioner firm dated 06- 12-2004 to use the standard mark for packaged drinking water as arbitrary, illegal and violative of right guaranteed to the Petitioner firm under Art 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India; (c) direct the second respondent ot process the application of the Petitioner firm dated 6-12- 2004 and if found in order grant the license to use the Standard Mark for packaged drinking water forthwith and pass such other and further order or orders as this HOn'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.S.RAJASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 8661 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner herein made an application on 6.12.2004 to the 2nd respondent-the Bureau of Indian Standards, for grant of licence to use the standard mark under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act 1986 for packaged drinking water under the name and style of Berkeley. Pursuant thereto, a preliminary inspection of the processing unit was made by the officials of the 2nd respondent on 2.3.2005 and samples of water were drawn for testing. While further steps are pending, the petitioner was charged with an offence punishable under Section 33 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act 1986 (for short ‘the BIS Act’) and C.C.No.6 of 2006 was registered on the file of the Court of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendra Nagar. However after full-pledged trial the petitioner was acquitted by judgment dated 15.12.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner made another representation on 19.1.2007 requesting the 2nd respondent to grant the licence. In response, by letter dated 13.3.2007 the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that its request for grant of BIS certification licence cannot be considered since the Appeal against the order of acquittal in C.C.No.6 of 2006 is pending before the High Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent as well as the other material available on record. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 38 of the BIS Act 1986 the Central Government made the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988. Regulation 4 which deals with grant of licence reads as under:- “4. Grant of licence.-(1) If the Bureau, after a preliminary inquiry, is satisfied that the applicant having regard to requisite skill, equipment, systems, resources, previous performance and antecedents relevant to the issuance of the licence is fit to use the Standard Mark, the Bureau shall grant a licence in Form II authorizing the use of the Standard Mark in respect of the article or class of articles manufactured by the applicant or in respect of the process employed in any manufacture or work, subject to such terms and conditions as specified in these regulations, The Bureau shall intimate the applicant about grant of licence. (1A) Where the application for a license is made by a person, who has been convicted under Section 33 of the Act, he shall not be eligible to apply for a period of six months from the date of such conviction. The period of disqualification shall be determined by the Bureau having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and it shall not exceed a period of one year.” (2) A xxxxxxxxxxxxxx On a reading of the above provision, particularly Regulation 4 (1A), it is clear that even the conviction under Section 33 of the BIS Act operates as a disqualification for grant of licence only for a period of six months from the date of such conviction. This is a case where the petitioner herein was acquitted in C.C.No.6 of 2006. Mere pendency of an Appeal against the order of such acquittal cannot be a disqualification under Regulation 4 (1A) and therefore, the 2nd respondent is not justified in rejecting the petitioner’s request for grant of licence on the ground of pendency of Appeal in this Court. However, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that since the petitioner’s application dated 6.12.2004 was already closed, it is necessary for the petitioner to make a fresh application together with requisite testing fee. The said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not supported by any specific provision under the Act or the Regulations made thereunder. Once the petitioner is acquitted after full-fledged trial and in the absence of any prohibition under the statue for grant of licence, the respondents are bound to consider the petitioner’s application in accordance with law. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 13.3.2007 is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner dated 6.12.2004 for grant of licence under Regulation 4 (1) of the Act and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. _______________ Justice G.Rohini Date:23.07.2009 mrb