MUKUL MUDGAL, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal by the Bureau of Indian Standards arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 08.05.2006 delivered by the Learned Single Judge, whereby it was held that the use of the words PURE , CRISP , REFRESHING , PURIFIED AND PURITY GUARANTEED and the pictorial depiction of snow-capped mountain and the sun on the label of Respondent No.1 M/s Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. for packaged drinking water, was not misleading, and was not prohibited by any law, and that the impugned letters including those dated 24.04.2001, 13/14.09.2005, 05.10.2005 and 07.10.2005 cannot be enforced by the Appellant. The appeal has been preferred on the ground that the pictorial device SNOW-CAPPED MOUNTAIN and the expression PURITY GUARANTEED as used in the label of Respondent No. 1 creates confusion in the mind of general public regarding the origin nature, composition and properties of the Respondent No.1 s product and suggest that the origin of the water being in the mountains, the product of the Respondent No. 1 is mineral water when admittedly the product of the Respondent No. 1 is only packaged drinking water and not packaged mineral water .

2. The learned Single Judge by his impugned judgment and order dated 08.05.2006 held as follows:-a) The definition of the word PURE and its cognates as well as the definition contained in the PFA Rules leaves no room for doubt that the correct connotation of the words packaged drinking water is not what is envisaged in Chemistry. b) The meaning ascribed to the word PURE must be seen in the context of the standard prescribed by the Bureau or under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules, since no useful purpose would be served at all in considering it in its absolutely pure state viz. distilled, as per the stance of the Bureau itself. c) When an ordinary consumer reads the words PURITY GUARANTEED the thought which would come to his mind is that it is totally safe for human consumption and/or fully compliant with the standards set down by the Bureau. The impugned label assures the consumer nothing more than this. There is, therefore, no justification whatsoever for the prohibiting the use of the words PURITY GUARANTEED . d) No infraction that Rule 37 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the PFA Act ) mandates such justification has been established by the Bureau. So far as Rule 41 is concerned the subject food product, namely, packaged drinking water, is not an imitation. e) If the argument of the Bureau is to be sustained, a blanket ban would come into effect on the use of the word pure thereby rendering the phrase imitation of any food totally otiose. Such an interpretation is not permissible. Today, various chemicals are employed in food articles especially for flavor. It is in that context that use of the word pure is not allowed. f) The primary function of consuming water is to quench ones thirst, which is the same as preventing dehydration. The common perception in hot or tropical countries is that cold water is not only satiating but also refreshing. Even so, the stand of the Respondent No. 1 that the pictorial device or artwork on the label showing snow clad mountains misleads the consumer is stretching the argument beyond reasonable limits.

3. The Learned Single Judge in Para 18 of the impugned judgment held as follows:-For these manifold reasons I am satisfied that the writ petition is well founded. It is declared that the use of the words PURE , CRISP , REFRESHING , PURIFIED and PURITY GUARANTEED on a label pertaining to packaged drinking water does not offend any provisions of law. It is further held that the use of the pictorial device/artwork on the label is not misleading and is not prohibited by any law. The impugned letters including those dated 24.09.2001, 13/14.09.2005, 05.10.2005 and 07.10.2005 cannot be enforced by the Respondent.

4. The brief facts of the case as per the Appellant are a