Back
2025 Supreme(MP) 451
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sanjeev Sachdeva, CJ, and Vinay Saraf, J.
Prem Prakash v. Union of India
Writ petition No. 21317 of 2019 (J); Decided on 23.7.2025
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
STANDARD RULES : R.15, R.32
Headnote
Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 -- S. 10 -- Indian Standards Rules 2018 -- Rr. 15 and 32 -- jurisdiction -- Laboratory Reorganisation Scheme framed by Bureau of Indian Standards -- condition for obtaining accreditation certificate from member institutions of certain international corporations challenged -- scheme formulated for purpose of increasing standard of Indian laboratories -- neither arbitrary nor in violation of fundamental rights of petitioner -- legality of policy can be subject to judicial review, not wisdom or soundness -- petition dismissed. (2002) 2 SCC 333 followed. [Paras 13 to 20]
Òkjrh; ekud C;wj¨ vfèkfu;e] 1986 & èkkjk 10 & Òkjrh; ekud fu;e] 2018 & fu- 15 rFkk 32 & vfèkdkfjrk & Òkjrh; ekud C;wj¨ }kjk fojfpr ç;¨x'kkyk iquxZBu ;kstuk & dfri; vUrjkZ"Vªh; fuxe¨a dh lnL;&laLFkkv¨a ls ekU;rk çek.ki= vfÒçkIr djus dh 'krZ vkf{kIr & ;kstuk Òkjrh; ç;¨x'kkykv¨a d¢ ekud esa o`f) djus d¢ ç;¨tukFkZ fofufeZr & u r¨ euekuh] u ;kph d¢ ewy vfèkdkj¨a dh vfrØe.kdkjh gh & uhfr dh oS/krk dk U;kf;d iqufoZy¨du fd;k tk ldrk gS] mlds çKku ;k lqLFkrk dk ugha & ;kfpdk [kkfjtA ¼2002½ 2 ,llhlh 333 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 13 ls 20½
Ishan Soni for respondents.
ORDER
Saraf, J:-- 1. Instant writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, who is Proprietor of Material Testing Laboratory namely 'Venus Testing and Research Laboratory' at Bina, District-Sagar seeking following reliefs :
i) Summon the entire relevant records pertaining to imposition of condition in the Laboratory Recognition Scheme, the Bureau of India Standard has contravened the provision of Bureau of Indian Standard Act, 1986 by imposing a condition as the laboratories which are accredited by an accreditation body that is not a member of 'Asia Pacific Laboratory Accreditation Corporation'/'International Laboratory Accreditation Corporation (ILAC/APLAC)' cannot get recognized under the 'Laboratory;
ii) Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold that imposition of such a condition in the 'Laboratory Recognition Scheme', 'Bureau of Indian Standard' has contravened the provisions of section 4 of the Act as the laboratories which are accredited by an accreditation body that is not a member of 'Asia Pacific Laboratory Accreditation Corporation'/ 'International Laboratory Accreditation Corporation (ILAC/APLAC)' cannot get recognized under the 'Laboratory is arbitrary, unjust and opposed to settled principles of law;
iii) Any other order/orders, direction/directions may also be passed;
iv) Cost of the petition may also kindly be awarded.
2. Bureau of Indian Standard (in short 'BIS') has framed Laboratory Reorganization Scheme including a condition that the laboratory should have accreditation to IS/ISO/IEC-17025 in respective field of testing such as mechanical, electrical, chemical or microbiological and the accreditation body should be a full member of 'Asia Pacific Laboratory Accreditation Corporation' (hereinafter referred to as 'APLAC') and/ or 'International Laboratory Accreditation Corporation' (hereinafter referred to as 'ILAC').
3. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid condition in the present petition mainly on the ground that in the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 and the rules formulated thereunder, there is no provision for obtaining the accreditation certificate from a body, which is full member of APLAC or ILAC and, therefore, there is no justification in imposing such a condition in the scheme and the same is in contravention of the provision of section 4 of BIS Act.
4. With the consent of the parties, final arguments were heard on 3.7.2025. The petitioner appeared in person and argued the matter for the purpose of final disposal.
5. Petitioner submits that in BIS Act, there is no provision that the accrediting body must be a member of APLAC or ILAC and, therefore, the condition enumerated in the scheme is liable to be quashed. He further submits that he applied to the respondents for providing the details of APLAC and ILAC in RTI Act, but no details are available with BIS despite that the condition has been imposed. He further submits that he preferred a petition under section 19 of the Competition Act, 2002, which was rejected by order dated 29.6.2017 and the appeal preferred by the petitioner assailing the said order was also dismissed by the National Company Law appellate Tribunal by order dated 2.5.2019. The SLP preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed on 5.8.2019.
6. The petitioner submits that BIS is a National Standard Body of India working under the aegis of Union of India and empowered to formulate the schemes for the purpose of Laboratory Recognition however, in the scheme, the condition to obtain the accreditation of IS/ISO/IEC-17025 from the institute which is the member of APLAC and ILAC is arbitrary and these associations are not having any office in the country and the legal identity of these associations are not known. He further submits that the accreditation bodies are charging exorbitant fees for providing the accreditation of IS/ISO/IEC-17025. He further submits that the said condition has been included in the scheme only for t
