( 1 ) THIS batch of writ petitions may be disposed of by a common order since the question that arises for consideration in all these matters is one and the same.

( 2 ) THE writ petitioners claim to be Small scale Industries manufacturing mineral water . They are aggrieved by the amendments made to the Prevention of food Adulteration Rules, 1955, whereunder the packaged drinking water (other than natural mineral water ) (I. S.-14543) is brought under the compulsory Bureau of indian Standards Certification Mark with effect from 29-03-2001. The amended rules prohibit manufacture, sale or exhibit for sale packaged drinking water and mineral water except under the Bureau of Indian standards Certification mark.

( 3 ) THE 1st respondent herein made amendment to the Prevention of Food adulteration Rules, 1955, (for short pfa rules ) amending Rules 42 and 49 of the rules by inserting Clause 14 to sub-rule [zzz] to Rule 42, the labeling of every package of drinking water has to be provided as packaged Drinking Water .

( 4 ) LIKEWISE Clause 28 is newly inserted to Rule 49 which is to the following effect: "no person shall manufacture, sell or exhibit for sale packaged drinking water except under the Bureau of Indian standards Certification Mark".

( 5 ) LIKEWISE in Appendix-B after Item A-32 new Item is inserted as A-33 defining the packaged drinking water (other than mineral water) .

( 6 ) THE sum and substance of the amendments to the PFA Rules, is that packaged drinking water is brought within the purview of the provisions of the prevention of Food PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 (for short pfa Act ). The case of the petitioners is that water is not food within the meaning of the provisions of the PFA Act and in fact it is specifically excluded from the definition of food as defined under Sec. 2 (v) of the PFA Act. Unless necessary amendments are made to the provisions of the PFA Act itself, the rule making authority cannot include water as an item of food for the purposes of the PFA Act. Since water is expressly excluded from the definition of food , the rule making authority cannot be permitted to bring the water within the purview of the provisions of the PFA Act by making necessary amendments to the PFA rules. It was also contended that the rule making authority did not follow the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the PFA act before the rules were promulgated. It was also contended that as per Rule 7 (7) of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987 (for short bis Rules ), it is optional for the industries to get the Bureau of Indian standards Certification.

( 7 ) IT was also contended that the procedure prescribed for making compulsory use of standard mark for articles and process to certain scheduled industries was not followed by the respondents before making it applicable to packaged drinking water . Section 14 of the Bureau of Indian standards Act, 1986 (for short bis Act ), enables the Government to notify any article or process of any scheduled industry requiring it to conform to the Indian standards; and direct the use of standard mark under a licence as compulsory but only after consulting the Bureau. The Central government in the instant case did not consult the Bureau of Indian Standards in making mineral water/packaged drinking water to get compulsory certification from bureau of Indian Standards, and in the absence of the same, the petitioners cannot be compelled to apply for and obtain Bureau of Indian Standards Certificate. These are the two issues raised in the writ petitions.

( 8 ) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Director of Ministry of Health and family Welfare, Government of India, in which it is inter alia stated that the government of India in exercise of the powers vested under sub-section (1) of section 23 of the PFA Act, gave its intent to lay down specifications for "packaged drinking water" by issuing Draft Rules vide gsr 85 (E), dated 03-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document