Madhya Pradesh High Court WP-9290-2016 (RAJESH NAYAK SOURABH Vs UNION OF INDIA) 11-07-2017 None for the petitioner. Shri Amit Seth, Government Advocate for respondents No.2 and 4/State.
Ms Jayalakshmi Aiyer, Advocate for respondent No.3. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Advocate for respondents No.6. 8 and 10. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition in public interest is against the water packaging companies selling water without complying with the prescribed standard under the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006. The grievance is that the Manufacturers are selling water in various quantities ranging from small Pouches of 250 ml to 20000 ml which is being sold in the market without any control and monitoring by the Authorities.
In return on behalf of respondents No.2 and 4, it is said to the following effect:
10. The answering respondents submit that as per provisions contained in the Food, Safety and Standard Act 2006, so also Bureau of Indian Standard Act 1986, the entity involved in production and sale of packaged drinking water is essentially required to obtain certification from respondent no.3 (BIS) and all the private respondents herein who are indulged in production and sale of packaged drinking water in Katni have obtained necessary certification from BIS, so also all of them are having consent and permission from Pollution Control Board, licence from concerned local body, licence from the Department of Food and Drugs Administration under the Food, Safety and Standard Act 2006 and have also deputed expert staff necessary for running such establishment. Copies of licence and permissions of respondents no.6, 8, 10 & 11 are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R/2, 3, 4 & 5 respectively.
11. It is further pertinent to mention here that all the aforesaid respondents have established proper laboratory and modern scientific equipments, which are required for production and purchase of packaged drinking water, as is evident from photographs, which are collectively marked as ANNEXURE R/6.
12. In so far as respondent no.7 is concerned, it had closed down its establishment and so far as respondent no.9 is concerned, same is not indulged in sale of packaged drinking water and is therefore not covered by the provisions of the Food, Safety and Standard Act 2006.
13. The Pollution Control Board also vide its communication dt.29/05/2017 had informed the answering respondents that the private respondents herein are having valid NOC in their favour to run their establishments. Copy of the communication dt.29/05/2017 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R/7.
None has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner on 12.05.2017. Today again none is present on behalf of the petitioner.
In view of the reply filed that the Manufactures have No Objection Certificate from the Competent Authority, we do not find any further indulgence is warranted in the facts of the present case.
(HEMANT GUPTA) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE