A WRIT PETITION IN PUBLIC INTEREST UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

Index

NOTICE OF MOTION

1. UNION OF INDIA
   Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution,
   Department of Consumer Affairs,
   Through the Secretary,
   Krishi Bhawan,
   New Delhi - 110001
2. BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS,
   Through its Director General,
   Manak Bhawan,
   9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
   New Delhi 110 002

Sir,

The enclosed writ petition along annexures in the aforesaid matter as being filed on behalf of petitioners and likely to be listed on .12.2015 or any date, thereafter. Please take notice accordingly.

NISHITH DESAI ASSOCIATES
C-5, DEFENCE COLONY,
NEW DELHI-110024

NEW DELHI
23.11.2015

URGENT APPLICATION

The Registrar (A)
Delhi High Court
New Delhi-110003

Sir,

Requesting to you kindly treat this accompanying application as an urgent one in accordance with Delhi High Court Rules and Orders

1. The ground of urgency prayer as above.

NISHITH DESAI ASSOCIATES
C-5, DEFENCE COLONY,
NEW DELHI-110024

NEW DELHI
23.11.2015

COURT FEE

NISHITH DESAI ASSOCIATES
C-5, DEFENCE COLONY,
NEW DELHI-110024

NEW DELHI
23.11.2015

LIST OF DATES & EVENTS

NISHITH DESAI ASSOCIATES
C-5, DEFENCE COLONY,
NEW DELHI-110024

NEW DELHI
23.11.2015

MEMO OF PARTIES

1. PUBLIC RESOURCE ORG, INC.
   Through its president, Mr. Carl Malamud,
   1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol,
   California, 95472,- USA.
2. DR. SUSHANT SINHA
   826, 1st Floor, 2nd Cross, 7th Main Rd,
   Indiranagar, HAL 2nd Stage,
   Bengaluru - 560008
   Karnataka
3. MR. SRINIVAS KODALI
   4-4-5/12/57/A, Chaitanya Purit Road No 1,
   Filter Bed, Adilabad,
   Telangana- 504001

..PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. UNION OF INDIA
   Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution,
   Department of Consumer Affairs, Through the Secretary,
   Krishi Bhawan,
   New Delhi - 110001
2. BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS,
   Through its Director General,
   Manak Bhawan, 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
   New Delhi 110 002

..RESPONDENTS

NISHITH DESAI ASSOCIATES
C-5, DEFENCE COLONY,
NEW DELHI-110024

NEW DELHI
23.11.2015

A WRIT PETITION IN PUBLIC INTEREST UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, FOR THE ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO THE UNION OF INDIA AND BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS TO MAKE THE INDIAN STANDARDS PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS UNDER THE BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS ACT, 1986, FREELY AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.

TO,

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HER COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONERS ABOVENAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The present writ petition is being filed by Petitioner No.1, Petitioner No.2 and Petitioner No.3 (‘Petitioners’) as a Public Interest Litigation as there is no other efficacious remedy available to Petitioners. Representations made by Petitioner No.1 to the Respondents to make the BIS Standards freely available or available at nominal costs have been to no avail. Petitioners submit that they are not guided by self-gain for themselves and that the intention behind filing the present writ petition is purely in public interest. The Petitioners are filing the present writ petition against Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Union of India (‘Respondent No.1’) and Bureau of Indian Standards (‘Respondent No.2’) so that the citizens of India may have access to more information regarding statutorily prescribed BIS standards in respect of goods, and also so that the manufacturers can be held accountable to such statutory BIS standards thereby enabling a greater transparency in respect of standard of goods sold and made available in Indian markets.
2. Petitioners humbly submit that they have obtained information regarding publication of standards and the manner in which standards are made public through correspondence between Petitioner No.1 and Respondents. Additionally, some information relating to standards is also available on the website of Respondent No.2 and in the BIS Act. Respondent No.2 has confirmed in its communications that standards will not be made freely available. These have been the primary source of information for Petitioners.
3. Petitioners humbly submit that if the present writ petition is allowed, all consumers in India will benefit from the free publication and ease of access to standards. Petitioners further submit that easy access to statutory standards in respect of manufactured goods will be of benefit to all citizens. Due to the manner in which standards are published and the prohibitive costs of access to standards, individual consumers are unaware of the applicability and enforceability of mandatory standards or even the fact that such standards exist.
4. Petitioners humbly submit that they are invoking the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ that this Hon’ble Court determines as fit and appropriate against Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Union of India (‘Respondent No.1’) and Bureau of Indian Standards (‘Respondent No.2’). Respondent No.2 is a creation of a statute and a Government entity and is therefore ‘state’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (‘Constitution’). Respondent No.2 is responsible for making and publishing standards and Petitioners are aggrieved by Respondent No.2’s reluctance and failure to make the standards public. To the best of knowledge of Petitioners, no other persons, bodies, institutions are likely to be affected by orders of this Hon’ble Court in light of relief sought in this writ petition.

1. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered not-for-profit organization based in California, United States. One of the prime objectives of Petitioner No.1 is to spread knowledge on the Internet for benefit of the general public solely for educational, non-commercial and charitable purposes. In line with this objective, Petitioner No. 1 has been actively involved since 2007 in placing materials such as court opinions, technical standards, and building codes mandated under United States law on the Internet for the benefit of the general public. Petitioner No.1 solely operates on grants received from organizations such as Google, Omidyar Network, Arcadia Fund and Elbaz Family Foundation and contributions from individuals.
2. Mr. Carl Malamud is the President and Founder of Petitioner No.1. Mr. Malamud is the author of 8 computer science books and was previously founder of the Internet Multicasting Service, a non-profit that started the first radio station on the Internet. Mr. Malamud is the recipient of the Berkman Award from Harvard “for his extraordinary contributions to the Internet’s impact on society.” For the last 30 years, Mr. Malamud has been making government information more widely available as his vocation and his avocation. Mr. Malamud was responsible for placing the U.S. Securities and Exchange’s Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system (EDGAR database) and the U.S. Patent database on the Internet for the first time and contributed his software and computers to the SEC to enable them to take over the service. Mr. Malamud was also responsible for placing all the opinions of the U.S. Court of Appeals on the World Wide Web for the first time. His work has been specifically recognized by the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Judicial Conference of the United States. Mr. Malamud’s objective personally and also of Petitioner No.1, is always to assist governments in various jurisdictions in meeting the challenges of information technology so as to provide services more efficiently and effectively.
3. Petitioner No. 2 is Dr. Sushant Sinha is a computer scientist who received the Ph.D. degree in Computer Science and Engineering from the University of Michigan in 2009. Following his studies, Dr. Sinha returned to Bengaluru where he was employed as a Principle Engineer at Yahoo specializing in search engine technologies. He is the author of numerous peer reviewed papers in respected international journals. In May 2007, while he was pursing his phD, on his own time, Petitioner No.2 began a project to create a web site called ‘Indian Kanoon’, a portal on the Internet that provides access and searches across the legal materials of India, including legislations and regulations as well as court cases for the Union of India and the states. He is currently the CEO of IKanoon Software Development Pvt. Ltd, a company he founded under the Indian Companies Act to provide advanced workflow and collaboration solutions to legal professions that would in turn fund the development and the maintenance of the free resources provided on the website. By building Indian Kanoon and providing statutes as a free service since the past 7 years on the Internet, Petitioner No.2 believes he is making a contribution to India, an endeavor all citizens should strive for. He strongly believes that every Indian should be legally aware of his rights and the law governing them and by providing these legislations, regulations, notifications and Indian Standards he is providing free and easy access to the required resources to every citizen to enable him to stand up for his right provided under law.
4. Petitioner No.3 is Mr. Srinivas Kodali a resident of Telangana. Petitioner No.3 received a Bachelor’s Degree in Civil Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology in Madras. Petitioner No.3 specialized in the study of transport engineering and worked at the Intelligent Transportation Systems Laboratory in the Centre for Excellence in Urban Transport at IIT Madras where he developed a system for dynamic tracking of campus buses at IIT Madras, a project that was awarded the special recognition Volvo sustainable mobility award by Volvo in October 2012. Petitioner No.3 has also developed applications for real-time bus arrival prediction in Chennai and is now working on on identifying transit deserts in Indian cities using techniques of “big data,” spatial algorithms, and network analysis. Petitioner No.3 was also a part of the project team of ChaloBEST Project at the Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, where he was helping develop tools for transit agencies and commuters in Mumbai. As a student of the topic and now as a working transportation engineer, Petitioner No.3 has no financial interest in this litigation. His motivation is to be able to consult and freely share the important information that is in the Indian Standards, a particularly relevant body of knowledge for his chosen profession to serving the public good. Petitioner No.3’s prime goal is to build a better transportation system for India, and as Indian Standards published by BIS are a way for all engineers in this field to be aware of important safety and other principles that are embodied in the transportation and safety standards, Petitioner No.3 believes that these Indian Standards are a crucial resource to contribute to the development of “smart” transit for the people of India. The petitioners have means to pay the cost, if any, imposed by this Hon’ble Court.

6. Petitioner No.1 has made several representations to Respondent No.2. Petitioner No.1 had written to Respondent No.2 by way of letters dated June 25, 2014, August 2, 2014 and October 25, 2014. However, there was no change in response of Respondent No.2. As the issues raised are of public importance, Petitioners are filing present petition as a Public Interest Litigation.
7. Petitioner No.1 is an organization that is devoted to improved standards of transparency, empowering citizens and helping citizens enforce their rights. Mr. Carl Malamud has travelled to India several times and also passionately believes in the objectives of Petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 is seeking to make available Standards which Petitioner No.1 had subscribed to and Respondent No.2 is now refusing access / renewal. Denial of information and access to information violates fundamental rights and Petitioner No.1 as an organization devoted to greater transparency and access of information has filed this writ petition bona fide and has no commercial interest in the same. Thus, Petitioner No.1 has locus standi to file the present writ petition.
8. The Petitioners before this Hon’ble Court are seeking limited relief that Respondents be directed to make public and freely accessible information relating to laws and legal standards of various products. Petitioner has challenged the prohibitive charges levied by Respondents on the ground that the same are arbitrary, unreasonable, deprive access of citizens to the law of the land and thus, violate fundamental rights of every citizen.
9. Respondent No. 1 is Union of India represented through the Chief Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution. The Department of Consumer Affairs is one of the two departments of the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution. Department of Consumer Affairs is the nodal ministry for overseeing the enforcement of various legislations relating to consumers and consumer rights, including, BIS Act and legal metrology. The Minister for Consumer Affairs is also President of the Bureau of Indian Standards, Respondent No.2. As such no relief is sought against Respondent No.1, however, its presence is required for the effective adjudication of this writ petition. Further, Respondent No.1 is the Ministry in charge of rights of consumers.
10. BIS was created by an Act of Parliament in 1986 and was formed by taking over the assets and liabilities of the then existing Indian Standards Institution (‘ISI’). BIS is the key agency in formulation of standards and certification programs. Respondent No.3 is a member / officer of the Bureau constituted under Section 3 of the BIS Act (‘Bureau’).
11. Entry 50 and Entry 51 of List I of Schedule 7 of the Constitution, empowers the Union Parliament to legislate in respect of subject relating to standards of weights and measures and establishment of standards of quality for goods sold in inter-State commerce. It is in exercise of these powers that Union Parliament enacted the BIS Act and has taken further steps thereafter.
12. Thus, Respondents are responsible for the formulation of standards, also referred to as Indian Standards, certification of products and systems, testing and calibration of schemes, also referred to as Indian Standards providing various ancillary services and enforcement of such standards. As stated above, the Bureau is a body corporate which carries on various activities which is are mandated under the BIS Act. The Bureau itself is constituted by Section 3 of the BIS Act.
13. The predecessor institution to Respondent No. 2, the ISI, that came into being on January 06, 1947, started operating the Certification Marks Scheme under the Indian Standards Institution (Certification Marks) Act, 1952 (‘Scheme’). The Scheme, which was formally launched by ISI in or around 1955-56, enabled it to grant licences to manufacturers producing goods in conformity with Indian Standards and to apply ISI Mark on their products. A need was felt by the Central Government to have harmonious development of the activities of standardisation, marking and quality certification of goods. A Bill titled The Bureau of Indian Standards with this objective was therefore introduced in the Parliament of November 26, 1986. The Bill was duly passed by both houses of Parliament and was enacted on December 23, 1986 after received the assent of the President. Respondent No. 2 consists of 25 members representing both the Central and State governments, Members of Parliament, industry, scientific and research institutions, consumer organizations and professional bodies.
14. Respondent No. 2’s main activities involve standards formulation and product certification. Respondent No.2 has so far formulated over 19,000 standards in a multitude of areas such as cosmetics, medical devices, disinfectants, steel products, internal combustion engines, clinical thermometers, oil pressure stoves, solvents for use in the extraction of vegetable oils, gas cylinders, X-Ray devices, infant foods, electrical wirings, lifts and escalators, ropeways, cable televisions, pneumatic tyres and several other products that affect every citizen of India. Each of these standards have a significant impact on the public safety of the citizens of India. Most people are not aware of the significant role Respondent No.3 plays to ensure safety and efficacy of the products used by them in their daily life.
15. It needs to be emphasized that these standards are law within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution and consequently, binding on those persons for who it is applicable. It is respectfully submitted that as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (‘Supreme Court’), once procedure established by law has been followed by a statutory authority, subordinate and delegated legislation is law under the Constitution. Moreover, compliance with specific standards has been deemed to be ‘mandatory’ in nature as per the Quality Control Orders under various legislations issued by the Government of India from time to time, as discussed below.
16. Every year, Respondent No. 2 publishes more than 300 new standards and 300 amendments. Respondent No.2’s product Certification Scheme is one of the largest in the world, with over 26,500 licensees covering more than 900 products. It is in existence for more than 58 years. It allows the licensees to use the popular BIS and ISI marks on their product, which is synonymous with quality and safe products. Respondent No. 2 also operates the Foreign Manufacturers Certification Scheme under which overseas manufacturers can be granted licence to use the BIS and ISI Standard Marks. As submitted above, Indian Standards are law as per the Constitution and compliance with some of these Indian Standards (approximately 90-92) mandatory.
17. The Bureau may constitute committees under the BIS Act, including the Advisory Committee and Executive Committee. Section 7 of the BIS Act provides for the appointment of a Director-General, who shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Bureau. Section 10 sets out, illustratively, powers of the Bureau.

    Section 10

    1. The Bureau may exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be assigned to it by or under this Act and, in particular, such powers include the power to -
       1. establish, publish and promote in such manner as may be prescribed the Indian Standard, in relation to any article or process;
       2. recognise as an Indian Standard, in such manner as may be prescribed, any standard established by any other Institution in India or elsewhere, in relation to any article or process;
       3. specify a Standard Mark to be called the Bureau of Indian Standards Certification Mark which shall be of such design and contain such particulars as may be prescribed to represent a particular Indian Standard;
       4. grant, renew, suspend or cancel a licence for the use of the Standard Mark;
       5. levy fees for the grant or renewal of any licence;
       6. make such inspection and take such samples of any material or substance as may be necessary to see whether any article or process in relation to which the Standard Mark has been used conforms to the Indian Standard or whether the Standard Mark has been improperly used in relation to any article or process with or without a licence;
       7. seek recognition of the Bureau and of the Indian Standards outside India on such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon by the Bureau with any corresponding institution or organisation in any country;
       8. establish, maintain and recognise laboratories for the purposes of standardisation and quality control and for such other purposes as may be prescribed;
       9. undertake research for the formulation of Indian Standards in the interests of consumers and manufacturers;
       10. recognise any institution in India or outside which is engaged in the standardisation of any article or process or the improvement of the quality of any article or process;
       11. provide services to manufacturers and consumers of articles or processes on such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed upon;
       12. appoint agents in India or outside India for the inspection, testing and such other purposes as may be prescribed;
       13. establish branches, offices or agencies in India or outside;
       14. inspect any article or process, at such times and at such places as may be prescribed in relation to which the Standard Mark is used or which is required to conform to the Indian Standard by this Act or under any other law irrespective of whether such article or process is in India or is brought or intended to be brought into India from a place outside India;
       15. coordinate activities of any manufacturer or association of manufacturers or consumers engaged in standardisation and in the improvement of the quality of any article or process or in the implementation of any quality control activities;
       16. perform such other functions as may be prescribed.
    2. The Bureau shall perform its functions under this section in accordance with, and subject to, such rules as may be made by the Central Government.
18. Sections 11 and 12 of the BIS Act provides for usage of the name and marks ‘Indian Standard’, ‘Indian Standard Specification’ and Section 14 of the BIS Act provides that the Central Government, may after consultation with the Bureau, notify articles or process which shall conform to Indian Standard. The Central Government may also direct that goods or manufacture process shall be compulsorily made under the Standard Mark licence. Section 15 of the BIS Act provides for the grant, renewal, suspension or cancellation of a licence granted under the BIS Act.
19. Section 33 (1) of the BIS Act provides that any contravention of the Sections 11, 12, 14 and 15 of the BIS Act will be punishable with imprisonment of upto one year or fine extending to Rs. 50,000. Thus, the BIS Act makes it clear that certain goods or processes shall be made compulsorily applicable and without such licence, a manufacturer may not be able to either manufacture or sell goods in India. Further, non-compliance with the BIS Act can result in criminal prosecution. This again reinforces the mandatory nature of the standards prescribed and that the same are law under the Constitution.
20. Respondent No. 2 formulates the standards when any Ministry of the Central Government, State Governments, Union Territory Administrations, consumer organizations, industrial units, industry-associations, professional bodies, its members and members of its technical committees submit to the Bureau a proposal for establishing a standard or for revising, amending, or cancelling an established standard. The work of formulation of standards on any specific subject is undertaken when the Division Council of Respondent No.3 is satisfied that there is a necessity for standardization. The Division Council concerned then assigns the task of formulating the standard to an appropriate Technical Committee or appoints a new Technical Committee for the purpose.
21. The Technical Committee then widely circulates the draft standard for a period of not less than one month for comments and suggestions. The Technical Committee then considers the comments received, formulates a draft standard and forwards it to the Sectional Committee of Respondent No.3. The Sectional Committee after its approval forwards the standards to the Chairman of the Division Council for adoption.
22. Out of the approximately 19,000 to 21,000 standards that have been formulated by Respondent No.3 that cover a multitude of products, certain Indian Standards have been notified under Section 14 of the BIS Act. Every article or process falling under the purview of Section 14 notified standards have to conform to these standards mandatorily. 90 to 92 such products are under mandatory certification and all these products have to conform to the notified Indian Standards. A copy of the list of these products and their corresponding Indian Standards are annexed herewith as Annexure ‘A’. In addition to the 90 products, there are many statutes, orders and notifications that mandate conformance with the standards prescribed by the Bureau (‘Indian Standards’ ‘BIS Standards’) for different products and processes. A copy of a non-exhaustive table containing a list of some of the statutes, orders and notifications that mandate conformance with Indian Standards are annexed herewith as Annexure ‘B’.

23. These statutes, orders and notifications prescribe criminal and/or civil penalties for non-compliance with these standards. Hence, the standards are of great significance. Section 2 (g) of the BIS Act defines Indian Standard:

    “Indian Standard” means the standard (including any tentative or provisional standard) established and published by the Bureau, in relation to any article or process indicative of the quality and specification of such article or process and includes –

    any standard recognised by the Bureau under clause (b) of section 10; and

    any standard established and published, or recognised, by the Indian Standards Institution and which is in force immediately before the date of establishment of the Bureau;

    Rule 7(1)(b) of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987 (‘Rules’) requires notification in the Official Gazette of the standards. Rule 7(1)(b) provides:

    “All Standards, their revisions, amendments and cancellations shall be established by notification in the Official Gazette.”

    Rule 7 (7) provides for the status of Indian Standards. Rule 7 (7) (b) provides that Indian Standards are binding where a government contract or other stipulation mandates them to be binding.

24. Although the BIS Act and Rules note that Indian Standards will have the force of law, it is to be noted that Rules 7(8) and 7 (9) of the Rules provide for publication of Indian Standards subject to payment of fee. Petitioners respectfully submit that the policy of charging fee and preventing Petitioners from making these to be freely and easily available and accessible to citizens of India, is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
25. The Indian Standards prepared by the Bureau are not generally made available in its publications or on its website. The Bureau is a profitable corporation and for the financial year ended March 2014, earned a total income of Rs. 324 crores and a surplus (being the excess of income over the expenditure) of Rs. 44 crores. For the financial year ended March 2013, the income was Rs. 297 crores with no surplus or deficit. It is also important to note that a substantial component of Establishment Expenses (which are part of cost of services rendered) is salaries of the Bureau. The net value of fixed assets is around Rs. 4 crores and is far lesser than leasehold lands, buildings and residential flats. A copy of the Annual Report of Respondent No. 2 is attached as Annexure ‘C’.
26. Indian Standards formulated by Respondent No.2 ensures the safety, efficacy, consistency and quality of products being manufactured and processes adopted in manufacture of goods in India. Thus, knowledge of these standards is very important to academics, consumers and manufacturers.
27. All Indian Standards formulated by Respondent No.2 including the Indian Standards that are applicable to products that fall within the Mandatory Product Certification regime and standards that require mandatory compliance due to their incorporation in various statutes, orders and notifications can be accessed only by way of purchasing them from Respondent No.2. There are three ways of purchasing the Indian Standards:
    1. Purchasing a Hard Copy of the standards through Sales Outlet/Offices designated by Respondent No.2,
    2. Leasing the standards through DVD. The lease is provided for a period of one year and can be renewed annually. The cost of DVD lease varies from the number of simultaneous users,
    3. The Soft Copy of the of the standards can be purchased through the website of Respondent No.2 (i.e., by downloading documents)
       http://www.standardsbis.in/Gemini/home/Home.action
28. The cost of purchasing a Hard Copy and Soft Copy of Indian Standards is the same. The cost of purchasing Indian Standards separately for each division ranges from INR 95,040.00 to INR 498,060.00. The cost of purchasing an entire set of Indian Standards on DVD lease for one year for a single simultaneous user is INR 419,800 and Indian Standards for each division range from INR 10,400 to INR 49,600. A copy of the breakup of the cost for accessing Indian Standards in Hard Copy, Soft Copy and DVD lease format is attached as Annexure ‘D’.
29. The BIS Standards are divided into 14 different technical divisions and standards categorized in each of the 14 different divisions can be purchased separately. However, buying a single standard is not adequate to comply with the requirements under law, hence, any person wishing to abide by these standards will have to buy multiple standards or an entire set of standards whose costs are relatively higher than that of an individual standard.
30. In June 2015, the Union Cabinet approved a Bill for introduction in the Parliament that proposes to bring in more items under the mandatory system. At present, only products and processes come under the ambit of Indian Standards. The Bill has proposed to include services also in the ambit of Indian Standards. The Bill has provided for compulsory hallmarking of precious-metal articles, widening the scope of conformity assessment, enhancing penalties, making offences compoundable and simplifying certain provisions in the Act. The Bill has proposed to allow multiple types of simplified conformity assessment schemes, including self-certification and market surveillance, instead of inspectors visiting factories. In the event the proposed Bill is enacted, the importance and role played by Indian Standards in ensuring health and safety of citizens of India, prevention of deceptive practices and protection of environment will be magnified.
31. In an attempt to further spread knowledge of the Indian Standards for the benefit of the general public and the inspiration Mr. Malamud derived from the 2006 Report of the National Knowledge Commission chaired by Mr. Sam Pitroda, which emphasized that “people’s access to knowledge can transform India’s potential”, Petitioner No.1 subscribed to the DVD’s containing the Indian Standards and made the Indian Standards available to a broader audience on the Internet completely free of cost for non-commercial usage.
32. Petitioner No. 1 informed the Director General of Respondent No.2, vide letter dated 25.06.2014, of Petitioner No. 1’s keen interest to renew subscription for DVDs of Indian Standards with the option of one update every 6 months, and also offering its services to make such subscription and update services better. However, Petitioner No. 1 received a letter dated 01.08.2014 from the Director (Sales) of Respondent No.2 (‘Director’) stating that Respondent No. 2 did not appreciate the efforts of Petitioner No.1 in making available the Indian Standards widely to the general public free of cost and this was against their copyright policy and the terms and conditions of purchase of DVDs. This letter also stated that Petitioner No.1’s contract for purchase of DVDs of Indian Standards will be terminated and further legal action under the Copyright Act, 1957 (‘Copyright Act’) will be initiated if Petitioner No.1 fails to remove all the Indian Standards from its website within a week’s time.
33. Petitioner No. 1 responded to Director’s letter through an email dated 02.08.2014, acknowledging the contribution of Respondent No.2 and appreciating Respondent No.2’s wonderful work. Petitioner No. 1 further also accepted that he had made available Indian Standards in furtherance of their efforts to make such crucial Indian Standards widely available, while stressing on the need to make the Indian Standards freely available to the public in pursuance of transparency and good governance as envisaged by the fundamental right of every citizen of India to know under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution as further detailed in the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’).
34. It is important to note that while the Petitioner No.1 has made Indian Standards easily and freely accessible on its website, the Petitioner No.1 has not charged any sum in respect of the same. As stated hereinabove, the Petitioners are committed to the values enshrined in the Constitution and are only seeking to empower citizens of India such that they may be aware of crucial legal standards and that such standards can also be enforced against manufacturers.
35. Petitioners humbly submit that they are not seeking publication and free access to Indian Standards for manufacturers for whom such Indian Standards are mandatory. Petitioners are seeking publication and free access to Indian Standards for consumers who are not aware of standards that are mandatory for manufacturers and enforceable against manufacturers.
36. Apart from the correspondence that was exchanged between the Petitioner No.1 and the Bureau as mentioned in paragraph 25 hereinabove, Petitioner No.1 also filed a detailed petition with Respondent No. 1 on October 25, 2014. However, Director rejected this petition through a letter dated June 8, 2015. A copy of the letter and the petition as mentioned hereinabove is attached as Annexure ‘E’ COLLY. It is submitted that, access of such information to the members of the public and citizens is imperative for protection and enforcement of their rights. As submitted above, the Central Government has the power and has indeed exercised the power to prescribe standards for products and processes. Prescription of standards without giving publicity is counter-productive and hence, Petitioners strongly believes in dissemination of knowledge and empowering citizens of India.
37. Petitioners 1, 2 and 3 are known to each other and strongly believe the cause of dissemination of information and free and easy access of information for the public. It is with this objective in mind that Petitioners have come together and approached this Hon’ble Court. None of the Petitioners have any financial interest in the present petition and would not stand to gain as a result of this petition. Petitioner No. 2 believes he is making a contribution to India, an endeavor all citizens should strive for. He strongly believes that every Indian should be legally aware of his rights and the law governing them and by providing these legislations, regulations, notifications and Indian Standards he is providing free and easy access to the required resources to every citizen to enable him to stand up for his right provided under law. Petitioner No. 3 believes that these Indian Standards are a crucial resource to contribute to the development of “smart” transit for the people of India. Thus, all three Petitioners strongly believe in this cause and working in fields which seek to empower citizens of India. Towards these common objectives all three Petitioners came together for the present writ petition.
38. It is respectfully submitted that enforcement of standards and obligations of manufacturers will be substantially affected if the Petitioners are wrongfully and unfairly deprived of their rights and information under the law of the land. It is submitted that given the vast number of standards and the number of manufacturers, logistically as well, it becomes impractical for the Respondents to enforce each and every standard. Independent manufacturers do not disclose standards of their respective products, except to say whether it is compliant with Indian Standards or not. A consumer or member of the public has no way of ascertaining whether the product sought to be consumed should mandatorily comply with standards as per Section 14 of the BIS Act and more importantly, what such standards should be.
39. It is respectfully submitted that it is a well-recognized principle that where there is a right, there is a remedy. Consequently, the BIS Act and the obligations it imposes on manufacturers and the duty that is cast on the Bureau and the Director, will have to be read in a manner that facilitates and furthers the objectives of the BIS Act rather than frustrate the objectives of the BIS Act.
40. It is submitted in this regard that the responses of Respondent No.2 are contrary to the object and purpose of the BIS Act and are in violation of the rights of citizens of India. It is humbly submitted that an approach that shrouds standards in secrecy and imposes prohibitive costs on the same, is completely in violation of the rights of citizens of India and also defeats the purpose of the BIS Act. It is further submitted that standards which are not notified in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court cannot be law of India and further, Respondents cannot put a price on the notification of standards for the purpose of compliance with the procedure established by law.
41. Petitioners have no other option or right but to approach this Hon’ble Court to enforce its / their rights under the Constitution and the BIS Act. Petitioners made representations before the Respondents however, since the Respondents did not respond and as the issue is of public importance, the Petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court. Since the receipt of response of Respondent No.2 by Petitioner No.1, Petitioners have sought to obtain more information regarding functioning of Respondent No.2 and the role played by Indian Standards in India.
42. It is therefore humbly submitted that the actions of the Respondents should be struck down and the Respondents should be directed to make available, BIS Standards at free / concessional rates on, inter alia, the following grounds:

GROUNDS

1. Because the citizens of India have a fundamental right to know the Indian Standards under the fundament rights guaranteed to them under Article 14, Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution, particularly when such Indian Standards directly affect their health and safety and are related to the governmental policies aimed at promoting standardization for public welfare and are expected to be adhered to by the members of trade.

   1. Indian Standards are law as per Article 13 of the Constitution and Respondents cannot impose a price on the same. Laws enacted by the legislature are to be freely and easily accessible particularly when the same affect the rights and obligations of millions of citizens. The charges levied by Respondent and the manner in which the same are made available to the public is contrary to the purpose for which the BIS Act was enacted, contrary to strengthening information and rights available to consumers and violative of the Constitution.
   2. It is submitted that the Supreme Court in Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal [AIR 1995 SC 1236] has held that the right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to educate and also the right to inform. The freedom of speech is a fundamental right that protects the right to disseminate information. Petitioners by placing the Indian Standards on its website, are providing free and easy access to such crucial information to the general public of India. As stated above, Petitioners are providing access to Indian Standards free and are not charging any fee for access to these documents.

   3. Hence, holding back important industry information from being published in public domain would be violative of the fundamental rights of students and the rights and interest of traders and manufacturers in practicing their profession. A review of the history of judicial thought of the Indian High Courts as well as the view of the Supreme Court in a series of decisions emanating from the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621] case, it is observed that even if a right was not specifically named in the fundamental rights chapter of the Constitution, it may still be fundamental if the right is covered under some clause of the various articles and if it is an integral part of a named fundamental right under the Constitution. Following this decision, in Inder Prakash v. Deputy Commissioner and Ors [AIR 1979 Delhi 87] the Delhi High Court held that:

      “the right to receive higher or professional education was itself a fundamental right, which would be spelt out of a number of clauses of Article 19(1) read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the right to receive the higher education or a professional education, which is a pre-requisite to practicing a particular trade or profession or to exercise some of the fundamental rights, such as the right to freedom of expression, be in themselves fundamental on the basis of the aforesaid theory, there be no escape from the conclusion that when the petitioner was sought to be deprived of the opportunity to pursue medical education by an improper order, the impugened action would constitute an infraction of his fundamental right.”

   4. Citizens of India therefore have a fundamental right in knowing what the law of the land is and a price cannot be imposed on ascertainment of such knowledge.
   5. It is submitted that levy of charges and sale of publications at such high prices is an unreasonable restriction that violates fundamental rights and right to equality of citizens. Failure to make laws easily accessible deprives a citizen of due process of law.

2. Because it is the obligation of Respondent No. 2 to establish and publish Indian Standards under the Act and the Rules.

   1. Section 2(g) of the BIS Act defines the term Indian Standard as:

      1. “the standard (including any tentative or provisional standard) established and published by the Bureau, in relation to any article or process indicative of the quality and specification of such article or process and includes — any standard recognised by the Bureau under clause (b) of section 10; and
      2. any standard established and published, or recognised, by the Indian Standards Institution and which is in force immediately before the date of establishment of the Bureau;”

      Section 10(1)(b) provides that the Bureau has the power to:

      “recognize as an Indian Standard, in such manner as may be prescribed, any standard established by any other Institution in India or elsewhere, in relation to any article or process”.

   2. Section 10(1) of the BIS Act, lays down the powers and duties of Respondent No.2 and Section 10(1)(a) provides that this includes the power to:

      “establish, publish and promote in such manner as may be prescribed the Indian Standard, in relation to any article or process;”

   3. Furthermore Rule 7(1)(b) of the Rules also requires Respondent No. 2 to establish the Indian Standards by notification in the official gazette. Rule 7(1)(b) provides:

      “All Standards, their revisions, amendments and cancellations shall be established by notification in the Official Gazette.”

      Thus, the BIS Act read with the Rules clearly imposes an obligation on Respondent No. 2 to publish the Indian Standards formulated by it in the Official Gazette. Respondent No. 2 is a statutory body created by the BIS Act. Thus, it is a creature of a statute and has to function within the confines of the statute and is bound by the obligations imposed on it by the statute.

   4. Respondent No. 2 however, does not publish the complete Indian Standards in the official gazette but merely publishes the Indian Standard number and the title of the Indian Standard stating that such Indian Standard is established and a complete copy thereof is available for sale at its office. A copy of such notification is enclosed herewith as Annexure ‘F’. This is a clear violation of Respondent No.2’s obligation under the BIS Act and Rules. Respondent No. 2 under the BIS Act read with the Rules is bound to publish the entire Indian Standard and not merely the Indian Standard number and its title.

   5. The Supreme Court in the case of Harla v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1951 SC 467] held:

      “Natural Justice requires that before a law can become operative it must be promulgated or published. It must be broadcast in some recognizable way so that all men may know what it is, or, at the very least, there must be some special rule or regulation or customary channel by or through which such knowledge can be acquired with the exercise of due and reasonable diligence.

      The Jaipur Laws Act of 1923 required the whole of the enactment to be published; therefore publication of only one section would not validate it if it was not already valid…”

      Thus, actions of the Respondents are completely contrary to law in as much as the entire standards are not published and made available. The Respondents action of merely issuing notification of the standards is not in compliance with the meaning of Section 14 read with Section 10(b) of the BIS Act. It is submitted that the Respondents are not complying with their obligation of publication under the BIS Act and hence, the actions of the Respondents are contrary to BIS Act and ought to be struck down.

   6. It is further submitted that the actions of Respondents are arbitrary in as much as the decisions of Respondents are not being determined by relevant factors which the BIS Act has been enacted for. It is submitted that when powers and discretion have been conferred on the Bureau, the Bureau is bound to exercise such power and discretion in a manner that would further the objects of the BIS Act.
   7. It is submitted that non-publication of standards in the Official Gazette is therefore a violation of due process by Respondent No.2.

3. Because Respondent No. 3 does not have the power under the Act to sell publications containing the Indian Standards which it is otherwise bound to make available free of cost.

   1. It is submitted that Rule 7 (9) of the Rules is unreasonable and arbitrary as the same does not have any guidelines and has conferred excessive discretion with no guidelines.

   2. It is submitted that in the case of Bureau of Indian Standards Vs. Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions) [(2013) 260 CTR (Del) 39], the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held:

      “Even though it [BIS] does take license fee for granting marks/certification, the same cannot be said to be done for the purpose of profit. If any profit/revenue is earned, it is purely incidental. The BIS performs sovereign and regulatory function, in its capacity of an instrumentality of the state.

      ***********

      Apart from the controlling or parent statutes, like the BIS Act, these statutory bodies (including BIS) are empowered to frame rules or regulations, exercise coercive powers, including inspection, raids; they possess search and seizure powers and are invariably subjected to Parliamentary or legislative oversight. The primary object for setting up such regulatory bodies would be to ensure general public utility. The prescribing of standards, and enforcing those standards, through accreditation and continuing supervision through inspection, etc., cannot be considered as trade, business or commercial activity, merely because the testing procedures, or accreditation involves charging of such fees. It cannot be said that the public utility activity of evolving, prescribing and enforcing standards, ‘involves’ the carrying on of trade or commercial activity.

      ***********

      The BIS performs sovereign and regulatory function, in its capacity of an instrumentality of the state. Therefore, this Court has no doubt in holding that it is not involved in carrying any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business.”

   3. It is submitted that Respondent No.2 is a creation of a statute and a Government entity and is therefore ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Respondent No.2 is ostensibly carrying out functions which are provided for in Entry 50 and Entry 51 of the Constitution. Consequently, Respondent No.2, as State, cannot be permitted to charge exorbitant and prohibitive charges while discharging a sovereign function. Further, Respondent No.2 cannot prevent others from making such information easily accessible to the citizens of India.

4. Because a public authority cannot withhold any information from public on account of copyright infringement if the said copyright subsists in the State. Wrongfully witholding such information is contrary to the procedure established by law and violative of the rights of the people of India and its constitution.

   1. Section 9 of the RTI Act provides:

      “Without prejudice to the provisions of section 8, a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may reject a request for information where such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State.”

   2. The Delhi High Court, in DMRC v. Sudhir Vohra [2011 IAD (Delhi) 369] held:

      “Clearly the words ‘other than the State’ at the end of Section 9 RTI Act reflect the legislative intent that the exemption from disclosure is available only where such disclosure involves infringement of a copyright subsisting in a person other than the State. There is no discretion to refuse when it comes to disclosure of information pertaining to a copyright subsisting in the State. The DMRC cannot refuse the information sought even if it might involve infringement of its copyright in the design pertaining to the cantilevered bracket of Metro Pillar No. 67.”

   3. Respondent No.2 has claimed copyright on all publications of Respondent No.2. A copy of the Indian Standard ‘Steel Tubes for Mechanical and General Engineering Purposes- Specification’ is annexed herewith as Annexure ‘G’. At page 18 of the annexed Indian Standard, Respondent No. 2 has claimed copyright in all its publications. It is submitted that Respondent No.2 being a statutory body performing a sovereign function has to disclose all the Indian Standards under a Right to Information Application being made under the RTI Act. Respondent No. 2 cannot withhold access to the Indian Standards on the ground that it would result in copyright infringement.
   4. It is further submitted that Indian Standards are a notification by Respondent No. 2 a body under the State. Hence Indian Standards are also law within the meaning of the Constitution. Consequently, there can be no copyright in respect to such law. It is submitted that the Respondents anyway have a statutory monopoly in creation, setting of standards and certifying programs and hence, cannot abuse this position of power to its own advantage and to the prejudice of citizens of India.
   5. It is submitted that in light of the statutory monopoly that, Respondent No.2 has, in being granted a right to claim copyright violation is only subjecting a citizen to double jeopardy. It is submitted that no person or authority or State can claim copyright in respect of laws which are to be enforced in India. It has been held by this Hon’ble Court that judgments reported by courts of law do not have any copyright and consequently, Respondent No.2 cannot claim any copyright in respect of Indian Standards published by it.
   6. It is further submitted that Section 52(q)(i) of the Copyright Act entails that the reproduction or publication of any matter which has been published in any Official Gazette except an Act of Legislature, shall not constitute an infringement of copyright. The standards established by the Bureau are required to be published in the Official Gazette and therefore any publication thereof shall not constitute a copyright infringement. The Bureau therefore, cannot be allowed to claim copyright infringement merely because it does not publish complete standards in the Official Gazette.

5. Because Respondent No. 2’s act of charging royalty on its copyright on the Indian Standards is against public policy:

   1. It is submitted that the Indian Standards promulgated by Respondent No. 2 are in a multitude of areas such as cosmetics, medical devices, disinfectants, steel products, internal combustion engines, clinical thermometers, oil pressure stoves, solvents for use in the extraction of vegetable oils, gas cylinders, X-Ray devices, infant foods, electrical wirings, lifts and escalators, ropeways, cable televisions, pneumatic tyres and every other aspect of our modern life. Each of these Indian Standards have a significant impact on the public safety of the citizens of India. It is submitted that some of these Indian Standards that are promulgated under Section 14 of the BIS Act are mandatorily to be complied with and there are criminal liabilities prescribed under the BIS Act for non-compliance.
   2. It is submitted that as a matter of policy, allowing Respondent No. 2 to monopolize publication and distribution of the Indian Standards that have significant impact on the public safety of every citizen of India is detrimental to the interest of society.
   3. Indian Standards are divided into 14 different technical divisions and standards categorized in each of the 14 different divisions can be purchased separately. This option is available for the Hard Copy, Soft Copy and DVD option. The cost of purchasing Indian Standards separately for each division ranges from INR 95,040.00 to INR 498,060.00. The cost of purchasing an entire set of Indian Standards on DVD lease for one year for a single simultaneous user is INR 419,800 and Indian Standards for each division range from INR 49,600 to INR 10,400. It is submitted that these amounts clearly illustrate that Respondent No. 2 is charging exorbitant prices, which is in the nature of royalty to access information that affect the public safety of every citizen in India while performing a sovereign function. It is submitted that this act is completely against public policy.
   4. Further, it is submitted that buying a single Indian Standard, is forced to buy the Indian Standard for the entire technical group, in which the Indian Standard he is seeking is a part. It is submitted that this practice of bundling by Respondent No.2 is complete abuse of its dominant power and the unilateral imposition of unfair terms on buyers.
   5. Thus, it is submitted that allowing Respondent No.2 to levy and charge any fees is completely contrary to public policy and deserves to be struck down as being violative of Article 14, Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution.
   6. It is further submitted that charging such high prices to educational institutions imparting knowledge and information on Indian Standards causes the cost of education to increase, imposes a burden on students and violates their right to information.

6. Because the actions of Respondents are completely contrary to settled and accepted international practices which recognize free and easy access of information, particularly laws, to citizens of a country.

   1. Clause 29 of Magna Carta, also recognises the fact that Justice and Right should not be sold to anyone or denied or deferred to any man.

      “We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right”

   2. This Clause seeks to curb the issue wherein justice and access to law was not being available to everyone and at very arbitrary or no cost. This cause aims to restrict the denial of access to justice and law without any valid reason.

   3. It is a settled principle of law that ignorance of law is no excuse for non-compliance. Lord Bingham reiterated and recognized the right of the public to read the law as a fundamental element of the doctrine of the rule of law. He stated:

      “The core of the existing principle of the rule of law [is] that all persons and authorities within the state, whether public or private, should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws publicly made.” [Lord Tom Bingham, The Rule of Law, Penguin Books (2010), pp. 37-39]

   4. This principle is also evidenced and reiterated several times in the orders and practices of the U.S. Copyright office. It can be also evidenced in the most recent Third Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices which states that:

      “As a matter of longstanding public policy, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a government edict that has been issued by any state, local, or territorial government, including legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials. See Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244, 253 (1888) (‘there has always been a judicial consensus, from the time of the decision in the case of Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591, that no copyright could under the statutes passed by Congress, be secured in the products of the labor done by judicial officers in the discharge of their judicial duties’); Howell v. Miller, 91 F. 129, 137 (6th Cir. 1898) (Harlan, J.) (‘No one can obtain the exclusive right to publish the laws of a state in a book prepared by him’). [U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition, 22 December 2014, § 316.6(C)(1), p. 37.]

   5. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress, considered the issue of building codes and copyright and thereafter firmly affirmed that:

      “Public ownership of the law means precisely that ‘the law’ is in the ‘public domain’ for whatever use the citizens choose to make of it. Citizens may reproduce copies of the law for many purposes, not only to guide their actions but to influence future legislation, educate their neighborhood association, or simply to amuse.” [293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002)]

   6. In the US 6th Circuit Court case, Howell v. Miller [91 F. 129, 137 (6th Cir. 1898)] it was held that, the “general proposition cannot be doubted” that “no one can obtain the exclusive right to publish the laws of a state”; there can be “no ground of complaint” against a party who merely reproduces “the general laws of Michigan as therein printed” in the official code books. Further in Davidson v. Wheelock [27 F. 61, 62 (C.C.D. Minn. 1866)] it was again held that, state statutes “are open to the world. They are public records, subject to inspection by everyone. They may be digested or compiled by any one, and it is true such compilation may be so original as to entitle the author to a copyright on account of the skill and judgment displayed in the combination and analysis; but such compiler could obtain no copyright for the publication of the laws only; neither could the legislature confer any such exclusive privilege upon him.”

      It is therefore submitted that the policy set out in Rule 7 (8) and Rule 7 (9) of the Rules and as implemented by Respondents is completely contrary to the BIS Act, its objectives and is violative of the rights of citizens of India. It is submitted that these practices are inconsistent with those followed by societies which follow rule of law and hence, such a practice deserves to be quashed.

43. That there is no other efficacious remedy and the BIS Act does not have an alternate remedy. Further, despite Petitioner No.1 having made representations, Respondents have failed to address the concerns raised in this Petition. Petitioners, who strongly believe in the cause, have approached this Hon’ble Court as there is no other recourse but to approach this Hon’ble Court.
44. Respondents have their office in New Delhi and are situated within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Respondents are amenable to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and hence, this Hon’ble Court has competence to entertain the present Petition.
45. That there is no delay in the present petition.
46. Court fees of Rs. 300/- has been affixed.
47. Petitioners have not filed any other petition or appeal before any court or tribunal in India.

PRAYER

IN THE PREMISES STATED HEREIN ABOVE, THE PETITIONER ABOVENAMED, MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYS THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:

1. Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.2 to make available all Indian Standards / BIS Standards free of cost or at such rates this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper,
2. Issue a writ of prohibition, restraining Respondent No.2 from charging exorbitant fees / charges on any future Indian Standards / BIS Standards,
3. Ad interim relief in terms of Clause (b) above, pending disposal of the present writ petition,
4. Any other relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

PETITIONER

THROUGH

NISHITH DESAI ASSOCIATES

C – 5,

DEFENCE COLONY,

NEW DELHI 110024

NEW DELHI
23.11.2015

Settled by
Salman Khurshid
Senior Counsel
New Delhi

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

PETITIONER

THROUGH

NISHITH DESAI ASSOCIATES

ADVOCATES

Annexure A: List of 90 Products Under Mandatory Certification

Source: Bureau of Indian Standards (Created January 23, 2014)

Annexure B: Sampling of Examples of Mandatory Use of Indian Standards As Specified in Regulations, Official Gazette Publications, Legislation, Etc.

Annexure C: Annual Report of the Bureau of Indian Standards

The Annual Report of the Bureau of Indian Standards (2013-2014) maybe found as linked hereunder:

• As originally posted on the web site of Bureau of Indian Standards.
• As further posted on the web site of Public.Resource.Org.

Annexure D: Breakup of the Cost for Accessing Indian Standards

The Breakup of the Cost for Accesing Indian Standards maybe found as linked hereunder:

• As originally posted on the sales web site of Bureau of Indian Standards:
  • Hard Copy.
  • Soft Copy.
  • DVD Lease.
• As submitted to the court and made available on the web site of Public.Resource.Org.

Annexure E: Petition to the Honorable Ministry

The Petition to the Honorable Ministry as submitted on October 31, 2014, maybe found as linked hereunder:

• As originally posted on the web site of Public.Resource.Org.
• As further posted on the web site of Public.Resource.Org.
• As a printed documented available for purchase for fee from the provider of print on demand Lulu.Com.

Annexure F: Official Gazette of September 24, 2015

The Gazette of India of September 24, 2015, maybe found as linked hereunder:

• As originally posted on the web site of The Gazette of India.
• As further posted on the web site of Public.Resource.Org.

Annexure G: Indian Standard for Steel Tubes

The Indian Standard IS 3601 (2006): Steel Tubes for Mechanical and General Engineering Purposes—Specification (Second Revision), maybe found as linked hereunder:

• As available for 2-page preview on the web site of Bureau of Indian Standards. Price for purchase within India is INR 370.00. Price for purchase outside India is INR3,700.00.
• As posted on the web site of Public.Resource.Org.
• As posted in the bilingual edition on the web site of Public.Resource.Org.

Application Under Section 151 CPC for Exemption

The Petitioner, above-named, respectfully submit as follows:

1. The Petitioners has filed the above-said petition for direction for the Respondents.
2. That the Petitioners /Applicants does not have the clear copies of certain annexures which are dim and seeks exemption from filing the same.
3. That the Petitioners/Applicants undertakes to furnish the proper and typed copies of the dim annexures as well as/ the fair copies of the annexures as and when this Hon'ble Court requires.
4. That the present application is bonafide and is made in the interest of justice.

WHEREFORE IT IS RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:-

1. Allow the petitioner/Applicant to file fair copies the dim Annexure as well as true copies of the annexures with the liberty to file proper and typed copies of annexure of orders as and when this Hon’ble Court requires.

Pass such other or further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

PETITIONER/APPLICANT

THROUGH

NISHITH DESAI ASSOCIATES

C – 5,

DEFENCE COLONY,

NEW DELHI 110024

NEW DELHI
23.11.2015

Affidavit of Carl Malamud in Support of Writ Petition

AFFIDAVIT

I, Carl Malamud aged about 56 years, S/o Dr. Ernest I. Malamud and Dr. Jean G. Malamud, R/o the United States of America and having an office at Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, California, 95472, USA, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am the Director of Petitioner No.1 and am well conversant with the facts of the present writ petition and hence, am competent to swear this affidavit. Petitioner No.1 is a company incorporated under the laws of California, U.S.A, having its office in U.S.A. I am authorized to institute, sign and file the present writ petition vide resolution passed in the Meeting of Board of Directors.
2. This petition has been filed by Petitioner No.1, along with Petitioner No.2 and Petitioner No.3 as co-petitioners, as a Public Interest Litigation.
3. I have gone through the Delhi High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 and do hereby affirm that the present Public Interest Litigation is in conformity thereof.
4. Petitioner No.1 does not have any personal interest in the litigation and neither Petitioner No.1 nor anybody in whom Petitioner is interested would in any manner benefit from the relief sought in the present litigation save as a member of the General Public. This petition is not guided by self-gain or gain of any person, institution, body and there is no motive other than of public interest in filing this petition.
5. Petitioner No.1 has done whatsoever inquiry which was in its power to do, to collect all data which was available and which was relevant for this Hon’ble Court to entertain the present petition. I confirm that I have not concealed in the present petition any data/material/information which may have enabled this Hon’ble Court to form an opinion whether to entertain his petition or not and/or whether to grant any relief or not.
6. That the accompanying Petition has been drafted under my instructions and the contents thereof except the legal averments contained therein are true and correct based on the records maintained by Petitioner No.1to my knowledge and belief. The legal averments contained therein are true and correct on the basis of legal advice received by me and believed by me to be true and correct. The contents of the Petition are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity and to avoid prolixity. The contents of the same may be read as a part of this Affidavit.
7. That no part of this Affidavit is false and no material facts have been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

I, Carl Malamud, do hereby on solemn affirmation verify that the contents of the present Affidavit have been read by me and I have understood the same and the contents of the same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and information and no part of it is false and no material facts have been concealed therefrom.

Verified at   Sebastopol, CA   on this     23     day of November, 2015 that the contents of the above affidavit and true and correct to my knowledge.

DEPONENT

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

State of California, County of        Sonoma       

On      November 23, 2015    before me,    Mary McDowell, Notary Public    personally appeared    CARL MALAMUD -------------------       , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature (Seal)

Affidavit of Sushant Sinha in Support of Writ Petition

AFFIDAVIT

I, Dr. Sushant Sinha aged about 35 years, S/o Dr. Arun Kumar Sinha, R/o India and residing at 826, 1st Floor, 2nd Cross Road, 7th Main Road, Indiranagar, Bengaluru 560008, do hereby solemnly affirm and declar as under:

1. That I am well conversant with the facts of the present writ petition and hence, am competent to swear this affidavit.
2. This petition has been filed by me along with Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.3 as co-petitioners, as a Public Interest Litigation.
3. I have gone through the Delhi High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 and do hereby affirm that the present Public Interest Litigation is in conformity thereof.
4. I have no personal interest in the litigation and neither I nor anybody in whom I am interested would in any manner benefit from the relief sought in the present litigation save as a member of the General Public. This petition is not guided by self-gain or gain of any person, institution, body and there is no motive other than of public interest in filing this petition.
5. I have done whatsoever inquiry which was in my power to do, to collect all data which was available and which was relevant for this Hon’ble Court to entertain the present petition. I confirm that I have not concealed in the present petition any data/material/information which may have enabled this Hon’ble Court to form an opinion whether to entertain his petition or not and/or whether to grant any relief or not.
6. That the accompanying Petition has been drafted under my instructions and the contents thereof except the legal averments contained therein are true and correct based on my knowledge and belief. The legal averments contained therein are true and correct on the basis of legal advice received by me and believed by me to be true and correct. The contents of the Petition are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity and to avoid prolixity. The contents of the same may be read as a part of this Affidavit.
7. That no part of this Affidavit is false and no material facts have been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

I, Dr. Sushant Sinha, do hereby on solemn affirmation verify that the contents of the present Affidavit have been read by me and I have understood the same and the contents of the same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and information and no part of it is false and no material facts have been concealed therefrom.

Verified at Bengaluru on this 23rd day of November, 2015 that the contents of the above affidavit and true and correct to my knowledge.

DEPONENT

Affidavit of Srinivas Kodali in Support of Writ Petition

AFFIDAVIT

I, Mr. Srinivas Kodali S/o Mr. K. Punna Rao, aged about 24 years, R/o India and residing at 4-4-5/12/57/A, Chaitanya Puri Road No. 1, Filter Bed, Adilabad, Telangana- 504001, presntly at New Delhi do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am well conversant with the facts of the present writ petition and hence, am competent to swear this affidavit.
2. This petition has been filed by me along with Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2 as co-petitioners, as a Public Interest Litigation.
3. I have gone through the Delhi High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 and do hereby affirm that the present Public Interest Litigation is in conformity thereof.
4. I have no personal interest in the litigation and neither I nor anybody in whom I am interested would in any manner benefit from the relief sought in the present litigation save as a member of the General Public. This petition is not guided by self-gain or gain of any person, institution, body and there is no motive other than of public interest in filing this petition.
5. I have done whatsoever inquiry which was in my power to do, to collect all data which was available and which was relevant for this Hon’ble Court to entertain the present petition. I confirm that I have not concealed in the present petition any data/material/information which may have enabled this Hon’ble Court to form an opinion whether to entertain his petition or not and/or whether to grant any relief or not.
6. That the accompanying Petition has been drafted under my instructions and the contents thereof except the legal averments contained therein are true and correct based on my knowledge and belief. The legal averments contained therein are true and correct on the basis of legal advice received by me and believed by me to be true and correct. The contents of the Petition are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity and to avoid prolixity. The contents of the same may be read as a part of this Affidavit.
7. That no part of this Affidavit is false and no material facts have been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

I, Srinivas Kodali, do hereby on solemn affirmation verify that the contents of the present Affidavit have been read by me and I have understood the same and the contents of the same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and information and no part of it is false and no material facts have been concealed therefrom.

Verified at New Delh on this 23rd day of November, 2015 that the contents of the above affidavit and true and correct to my knowledge.

DEPONENT

Vakalatnama

VAKALATNAMA

KNOW ALL to whom these presents shall come that We, the above named Public Resource ORG, INC. represented through Carl Malamud aged about 56 years, S/o Dr. Ernest I. Malamud and Dr. Jean G. Malamud, R/o the United States of America and having an office at Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, California, 95472, USA, - (Petitioner No. 1)

NISHITH DESAI ASSOCIATES:

C-5, DEFENCE COLONY,

NEW DELHI -110014, PH. 011-49065000

Advocates, (hereinafter called the Advocates) to be my Advocates in the above noted case and authorize them:-

To act, appear and plead in the above-noted case in this Court or in any other Court in which the same may be tried or heard and also in the Appellate Court including High Court subject to payment of fees separately for each Court by me/us.

To sign, file, verify and present pleadings, appeals, cross-objections or petitions for executions review, revision, withdrawal, compromise or other petitions or affidavits or other documents as may be deemed necessary or proper for the prosecution of the said case in all its stages subject to payment of fees for each stage.

To file and take back documents, to admit and/or deny the documents of the opposite party.

To withdraw or compromise the said case or submit to arbitration any differences or disputes that may arise touching or in any manner relating to the said case.

To take execution proceedings.

To deposit, draw and receive monies, cheques, cash and grant receipts thereof and to do all other acts and things which may be necessary to be done for the progress and in the course of the prosecution of the said case.

To appoint and instruct any other legal practitioner or person authorising him to exercise the power and authority hereby conferred upon the Advocate whenever he may think fit to do so and sign the power of attorney on our behalf.

And I the undersigned do hereby agree to ratify and confirm all acts done by the Advocate or his substitute in the matter as my acts, as if done by me to all intents and purposes.

And I undertake that I or my duly authorised agents would appear in Court on all hearings and will inform the Advocate for appearance when the case is called.

And I the undersigned do hereby agree not to hold the Advocate or his substitute responsible for the result of the said case. The adjournment costs whenever ordered by the Court shall be of the Advocate which he shall receive and retain for himself.

And I the undersigned do hereby agree that in the event of the whole or part of the fee agreed by me to paid to the Advocate remaining unpaid he shall be entitled to withdraw from the prosecution of the said case until the same is paid up. The fee settled is only for the above case and above Court. I hereby agree that once the fee is paid I will not be entitled for the refund of the same in any case whatsoever.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF We do hereunto set our seal to these presents the contents of which have been understood by Us on this 24th day of November, 2015.

Accepted subject to the terms of fees.

Board Resolution of Authorization

CERTIFIED TRUE EXTRACT OF THE DIRECTOR’S RESOLUTION OF PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC. (THE “COMPANY”)

“IT IS UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT approval be and is hereby granted to Mr. Carl Malamud for signing, verifying and executing any writ petition, counter affidavit, suit, written statement, interim application, caveat petition or other pleadings as may be required before any Court or Tribunal in India by or against the Company and that Mr. Carl Malamud be and is hereby authorized to engage and appoint counsel, sign and execute the documents on behalf of the Company, including vakalatnama, applications, petitions, affidavits, affidavits-in-reply, affidavits in rejoinder and other documents as may be deemed necessary and expedient in this regard.”

Certified as a true extract on     16 Nov 2015    [Please insert date]

For and on behalf of Public Resource.Org

Director and Chairman of the Board
Mr. Tim Stanley

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

State of California, County of                                

On      16th November 15    before me,    Doug Shon, Notary Public    personally appeared    TIM STANLEY ---------------------       , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature (Seal)

Public Domain Dedication

In order to further the progress of legal education and to make known the contents of these proceedings and the particular of the reasoning, Public.Resource.org ("Public Resource") does hereby waive and forgo any intellectual property rights it may posess in the present writ petition and accompanying materials and does therefore affix the Creative Commons license “NO RIGHTS RESERVED.”

By resolution of the Board of Directors,

Carl Malamud
President and Director
Public.Resource.Org

This document is available in HTML and PDF formats.