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

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

Preliminary Submissions:

1. Petitioners submit that the present writ petition seeking limited relief on easy access and publication of BIS Standards (standards issued and duly notified by Respondent No.2 under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 (‘BIS Act’) was filed in December 2015.
2. In March 2016, the BIS Act was repealed and the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016 (‘2016 BIS Act’) was passed by Parliament of India and received assent of the President of India and was duly notified.
3. Petitioners humbly submit that notwithstanding the passage of the 2016 BIS Act, the reliefs claimed by Petitioners are still valid and their apprehensions that BIS Standards may not be made public also remain valid and unchanged.
4. It is respectfully submitted that Petitioners by way of the Writ Petition are seeking only limited relief that BIS Standards be made public as the same have force of law and its compliance is necessary for manufacturers and service providers in India. As a corollary, consumers in India will benefit with greater access to BIS Standards. However, Respondent No.2 has prevented such access on the ground of copyright and on the ground that it needs to charge for BIS Standards.
5. Petitioners submit that compliance with BIS Standards is made mandatory through other statutes such as, Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on sales) Regulations, 2011, which provides that certain products shall not be manufactured or sold without Bureau of Indian Standards Certification Mark.

   2.3.14: Restrictions relating to conditions for sale

   (4) No person shall manufacture, sell, store or exhibit for sale, an infant milk food, infant formula and milk cereal based weaning food, processed cereal based weaning food and follow up formula except under Bureau of Indian Standards Certification Mark.

   (5) Condensed milk sweetened, condensed skimmed milk sweetened, milk powder, skimmed milk powder, partly skimmed milk powder and partly skimmed sweetened condensed milk shall not be sold except under Indian Standards Institution Certification Mark

   (17)No person shall manufacture, sell or exhibit for sale packaged drinking water except under the Bureau of Indian Standards Certification Mark.

   (18) No person shall manufacture, sell or exhibit for sale mineral water except under the Bureau of Indian Standards Certification Mark.

6. Respondent No.2 has erroneously contended that Petitioners are contesting Respondent No.2’s claim of copyright. Petitioners are not contesting the same – Petitioners are only seeking that BIS Standards which have the force of law and its compliance is mandatory, should be made public.

Reply to Preliminary Submissions:

1. The contents of paragraph 1 do not warrant any reply.
2. The contents of paragraphs 1 and 2 are matter of record and do not warrant any reply.
3. The contents of paragraph 3 are denied. It is submitted that Respondent No.2 has acknowledged that it is a statutory authority established under an act of Parliament. While Respondent No.2 may be entitled to claim copyright in respect of BIS Standards that are designed / evolved by it, Respondent No.2 is an instrument of state, performs a statutory function and is ‘state’ within the Constitution of India. BIS Standards therefore have the force of law. Therefore, while it may be entitled to claim copyright in the BIS Standards, it cannot withhold access to BIS Standards on the ground of copyright. For reasons stated in the Writ Petition, it is reiterated that BIS Standards require absolute compliance and if a manufacturer / service provider fails to comply with applicable BIS Standards, such person may be liable for prosecution.
4. The contents of paragraph 4 are emphatically denied. It is submitted that as such, there may not be copyright in an act of Parliament or statutory rules and regulations that have the force of law. BIS Standards have the force of law. Therefore, even if Respondent No.2 is entitled to claim copyright in the BIS Standards, it cannot withhold access to BIS Standards on the ground of copyright. The contents of the Writ Petition are reiterated and not repeated.
5. The contents of paragraph 5, in so far as it relates to functioning of the Executive Committee does not warrant any reply. It is however emphatically denied that Respondent No.2 is entitled to charge for making BIS Standards which has the force of law, available to the public.
6. The contents of paragraph 6 are emphatically denied. It is denied for want of knowledge whether Respondent No.2 is following any internal guidelines. It is reiterated that BIS Standards have the force of law.
7. The contents of paragraphs 7 and 8 are legal and do not warrant any reply.
8. The contents of paragraphs 9 are denied for want of knowledge in so far as it relates to the internal management and functioning of Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2’s assertion on how BIS Standards may be used are emphatically denied. BIS Standards therefore have the force of law. Respondent No.2 cannot withhold access to BIS Standards on the ground of copyright.
9. The contents of paragraphs 10 are denied as the same relates to the internal management of Respondent No.2. It is denied for want of knowledge whether BIS Standards are sold on a ‘no profit- no loss’ basis.
10. The contents of paragraph 11 to 15 are matters of record and do not warrant any reply. It is however clarified, that representations were made to Respondent No.2 by Petitioner No.1 and not ‘Carl Malamud’. Carl Malamud is a director and authorized officer of Petitioner No.1 and has not written in his individual capacity but in his capacity as authorized officer of Petitioner No.1. It is also clarified that the website bearing domain name – https://law.resource.org does not belong to Carl Malamud but belongs to Petitioner No.1, Public Resource Org Inc. It is emphatically denied that there is any violation of copyright in BIS Standards.
11. The contents of paragraphs 16 in relation to correspondences between Respondent No.2 and Petitioner No.1 are matter of record and do not warrant any reply. It is however clarified that Respondent No.2 is confusing Petitioner No.1 with its authorized officer. Shri Carl Malamud has corresponded with Respondent No.2 in his capacity as an authorized officer (director and President) of Petitioner No.1 and has not used BIS Standards for his personal benefit as alleged by Respondent No.2. In so far as Respondent No.2’s allegation on violation / breach of copyright is concerned, the same are emphatically denied. While Respondent No.2 may be entitled to claim copyright in the BIS Standards, it cannot withhold access to BIS Standards as these have force of law in India.
12. In relation to paragraphs 17 to 21, it is submitted that the correspondences referred to and relied upon by Respondent No.2 are matters of record. It is however submitted that Respondent No.2 has completely misunderstood the present writ petition and is confusing the reliefs of Petitioners in the writ petition for an alleged personal action by Shri Carl Malamud. It is respectfully submitted, Respondent No.2 has also failed to appreciate that Shri. Carl Malamud is only an authorized officer of Petitioner No.1 and is not the Petitioner himself. Further, correspondences authored by Shri. Carl Malamud were in his capacity as authorized officer of Petitioner No.1. It is further clarified that the present writ petition is filed by three petitioners and not by Shri. Carl Malamud as wrongly assumed by Respondent No.2. Further, the relief sought in the present writ petition is in relation to practice of Respondent No.2 to charge all or any users fees for BIS Standards. Respondent No.2 has erroneously misunderstood the present writ petition to be limited to notices issued qua Petitioner No.1.
13. The contents of paragraph 21 are wrong and emphatically denied. It is reiterated that Respondent No.2 has misunderstood the scope of the present writ petition. Petitioners have not challenged legality of communications issued by Respondent No.2 to Petitioner No.1. On the contrary, Petitioners have challenged Respondent No.2’s practice of charging fees for BIS Standards, particularly, when such BIS Standards have the force of law and non-compliance with the BIS Standards may attract criminal prosecution. The contents of the Writ Petition are reiterated and not repeated.

Reply to Preliminary Objections

14. The contents of paragraph of 1 of the Preliminary Objections are wrong and emphatically denied. It is denied that the present Writ Petition is a gross abuse of the process of court and that it is liable to be dismissed forthwith. Petitioners have raised substantial questions of law relating to right of Respondent No.2 to deny access to BIS Standards on the ground of copyright in BIS Standards. Respondent No.2 cannot withhold access to BIS Standards as the same have force of law in India.
15. The contents of paragraph of 2 of the Preliminary Objections are legal and do not warrant any reply.
16. The contents of paragraph of 3 of the Preliminary Objections are wrong and emphatically denied. It is emphatically denied that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground that Petitioners have not challenged validity of any rule or regulation of Respondent No.2. It is once again reiterated that Petitioners are only challenging the exercise and manner of exercise of powers of Respondent No.2 and not the conferment of powers itself.
17. The contents of paragraph of 4 of the Preliminary Objections are wrong and emphatically denied. While Respondent No.2 may be entitled to claim copyright in the BIS Standards, it cannot withhold access to BIS Standards on the ground of copyright.
18. The contents of paragraph of 5 of the Preliminary Objections are wrong and emphatically denied. Respondent No.2 cannot withhold access to BIS Standards on the ground of copyright.
19. The contents of paragraph 6 of the Preliminary Objections are not denied in so far as it relates to Petitioner No.1 purchasing certain standards from Respondent No.2. While Respondent No.2 may be entitled to claim copyright in the BIS Standards, it cannot withhold access to BIS Standards.
20. The contents of paragraph 7 of the Preliminary Objections are not denied in so far as it relates to Petitioner No.1 purchasing certain standards from Respondent No.2. The allegations against Shri. Carl Malamud are completely unwarranted, false, frivolous and made with a deliberate intention to harass Shri. Carl Malamud and Petitioner No.1. It is submitted that Respondent No.2 has misunderstood the scope of the present Writ Petition. It is submitted that the present Writ Petition is not in relation to any alleged cause of action that may accrue in favor of Petitioner No.1 or in respect of alleged breach of copyright of Respondent No.2 by Petitioner No.1. Petitioners’ challenge is limited to access to BIS Standards and consequential relief from this Hon’ble Court.
21. The contents of paragraph 9 of the Preliminary Objections are wrong and emphatically denied. Respondent No.2 is confusing Petitioner No.1 with its authorized officer. Shri Carl Malamud has corresponded with Respondent No.2 in his capacity as an authorized officer (director and President) of Petitioner No.1 and has not used BIS Standards for his personal benefit as alleged by Respondent No.2. In so far as Respondent No.2’s allegation on violation / breach of copyright is concerned, the same are emphatically denied. While Respondent No.2 may be entitled to claim copyright in the BIS Standards, it cannot withhold access to BIS Standards on the ground of copyright.
22. The contents of paragraph 10 of the Preliminary Objections are wrong and emphatically denied. The contents of the Writ Petition and paragraphs above are reiterated.
23. The contents of paragraph 11 of the Preliminary Objections are wrong and emphatically denied. It is emphatically denied that Petitioner No.1 or Shri. Carl Malamud are doing anything illegal. While Respondent No.2 may be entitled to claim copyright in the BIS Standards, it cannot withhold access to BIS Standards on the ground of copyright.
24. The contents of paragraph 12 of the Preliminary Objections are wrong and emphatically denied. It is emphatically denied that BIS Standards are not law in India. The contents of preceding paragraphs and the writ petition are reiterated.
25. The contents of paragraph 13 to 15 of the Preliminary Objections are legal do not warrant any reply. It is however reiterated that BIS Standards are law and that Respondent No.2 cannot use this as ground to deny access to BIS Standards to public.
26. The contents of paragraph 16 of the Preliminary Objections are wrong and emphatically denied. It is humbly submitted that Respondent No.2 has stated that laws cannot be copied and it is humbly submitted that access to laws of India cannot be denied on the ground of copyright.
27. The contents of paragraph 17 of the Preliminary Objections are legal and do not warrant any reply. It is however reiterated that BIS Standards are law and that Respondent No.2 cannot deny access to BIS Standards to public.
28. The contents of paragraph 18 of the Preliminary Objections are denied for want of knowledge. It is however submitted that the present Writ Petition does not seek adjudication of title or ownership in respect of the BIS Standards. Petitioners limited relief is that BIS Standards which have the force of law cannot be made available only subject to payment and Respondent No.2 cannot deny access of the same to people of India. It is further submitted that the original civil suit relied upon by Respondent No.2 has no bearing on the present Writ Petition.
29. The contents of paragraph 18 of the Preliminary Objections are denied. It is however reiterated that BIS Standards are law and that Respondent No.2 cannot deny access to BIS Standards to public on the ground of copyright.
30. The contents of paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Preliminary Objections are legal and do not warrant any reply. It is however reiterated that BIS Standards are law and that Respondent No.2 cannot deny access to BIS Standards to public on the ground of copyright.

Reply on Merits

31. The contents of paragraph 1 of reply on merits are wrong and emphatically denied. Respondent No.2 is state for the purpose of the Constitution and hence, the writ petition is maintainable against Respondent No.2. Further, as a creature established by an act of parliament, Respondent No.2 is empowered to perform certain statutory functions which no other private person can perform. BIS Standards are law and access to the same cannot be denied on the ground of alleged copyright violation. Hence, Respondent No.2 cannot prevent making BIS Standards easily accessible to the people of India. It is reiterated that Petitioners have nothing to gain from the present Writ Petition and it is emphatically stated that Petitioners will not profit from making BIS Standards accessible to people of India.
32. The contents of paragraph 2 of reply on merits are matter of record and do not warrant any reply.
33. The contents of paragraph 3 of reply on merits are wrong and emphatically denied. It is emphatically reiterated that people of India and consumers will benefit from making BIS Standards public and accessible to all. It is emphatically denied that Petitioners are espousing the cause of manufacturers. It is submitted that the Writ Petition is bona fide and the allegations and contentions of Respondent No.2 are false, frivolous and vexatious.
34. In response to paragraph 4 of reply on merits, Petitioners submit that they seek that all BIS Standards are made accessible and available online and not only few BIS Standards in relation to public safety.
35. The contents of paragraph 5 of reply on merits are denied in as much as Respondent No.2 has alleged that the Writ Petition is not bona fide or that Petitioners are not acting for benefit of people of India in the present writ petition. It is emphatically denied that Respondent No.2 can charge people of India money for accessing BIS Standards which are laws in India.
36. The contents of paragraph 6 do not warrant any reply.
37. The contents of paragraph 7 are wrong and emphatically denied. It is emphatically denied that BIS Standards are not law in India. It is submitted that Respondent No.2 is objecting to the easy access of BIS Standards and this is in violation of the Constitution as it prevents access to laws of India.
38. The contents of paragraph 8 are denied in as much as Respondent No.2 states that no relief can be claimed against it. It is submitted that Respondent No.2 is an instrument of the State, it is a creature of parliament that is responsible for fixing standards under law in India. Therefore, Respondent No.2 is a necessary party and merely because no relief is claimed against Respondent No.1, such fact by itself does not make the Writ Petition not maintainable.
39. The contents of paragraph 9 of reply on merits does not warrant any reply.
40. The contents of paragraph 10 of reply on merits does not warrant any reply.
41. The contents of paragraph 11 of reply on merits are wrong and denied and the contents of paragraph 11 of the Writ Petition are reiterated.
42. The contents of paragraph 12 and 13 of reply on merits does not warrant any reply.
43. The contents of paragraph 14 of reply on merits are wrong and emphatically denied. It is submitted that BIS Standards issued by Respondent No.2 are law in India as once a BIS Standard is duly notified, compliance with the same is mandatory and non-compliance will attract sanction under law. Hence, BIS Standards have the force of law in India and Respondent No.2 cannot deny access of BIS Standards to people of India.
44. The contents of paragraph 15 of reply on merits do not warrant any reply, except to reiterate that BIS Standards have the force of law in India.
45. The contents of paragraph 16 and 17 of the reply on merits do not warrant any reply.
46. The contents of paragraph 18 of the reply on merits do not warrant any reply, however, it is reiterated that BIS Standards have the force of law in India.
47. The contents of paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 of the reply on merits do not warrant any reply except to reiterate that BIS Standards have the force of law in India.
48. The contents of paragraph 22 of the reply on merits do not warrant any reply except to reiterate that BIS Standards have the force of law in India. Consequently, Respondent No.2 cannot deny access to BIS Standards to public.
49. The contents of paragraph 23 of the reply on merits are emphatically denied. It is reiterated that BIS Standards have the force of law in India and that Respondent No.2 cannot deny access to BIS Standards to public.
50. The contents of paragraph 24 of reply on merits relate to material on record and do not warrant any reply. The contents of the corresponding paragraph of the Writ Petition are reiterated.
51. In response to paragraph 25 of reply on merits, it is however reiterated that BIS Standards are law and that Respondent No.2 cannot deny access to BIS Standards to public.
52. The contents of paragraph 26 of reply on merits relate to material on record and do not warrant any reply. The contents of the corresponding paragraph of the Writ Petition are reiterated.
53. The contents of paragraph 27 of reply on merits relate to material on record and do not warrant any reply.
54. The contents of paragraph 28 of reply on merits relate to material on record and do not warrant any reply. The contents of the corresponding paragraph of the Writ Petition are reiterated.
55. The contents of paragraph 29 of reply on merits relate to material on record and do not warrant any reply.
56. The contents of paragraph 30 of reply on merits relate to material on record and do not warrant any reply. It is reiterated that Respondent No.2 has misunderstood the transactions / events and failed to appreciate that actions of Shri. Carl Malamud were not in his independent capacity but as authorized officer / director of Petitioner No.1.
57. The contents of paragraph 31 of reply on merits relate to material on record and do not warrant any reply. It is reiterated that BIS Standards have the force of law in India. Respondent No.2 cannot deny access to BIS Standards to public on the ground of copyright.
58. The contents of paragraph 32 of reply on merits are wrong and emphatically denied and the contents of paragraph 57 above are reiterated.
59. The contents of paragraph 33 of reply on merits are wrong and emphatically denied. It is reiterated that BIS Standards have the force of law in India. Respondent No.2 cannot deny access to BIS Standards to public. It is submitted that Respondent No.2 has admitted that there is no reason why public should be made aware of standards and only manufacturers should know standards. It is respectfully submitted that it is unfortunate that Respondent No.2, an instrument of State, makes an admission that denies rights of consumers in India. If consumers are not aware of their rights, it is difficult for them to enforce their own rights. It is humbly submitted that it is for these reasons that BIS Standards must be made public. It is emphatically denied that Petitioners are fighting for the cause of manufacturers and Petitioners have clearly stated as much in the Writ Petition.
60. The contents of paragraph 34 of reply on merits are wrong and emphatically denied. It is respectfully submitted that it is quite shocking that an instrument of State that is created by an act of parliament for formulation of standards, would state that consumers do not have any right to know standards. The contents of paragraphs above are reiterated.
61. The contents of paragraph 35 of reply on merits do not warrant any reply except to state that the contents of paragraphs above are reiterated.
62. The contents of paragraph 36 of reply on merits are wrong and emphatically denied. It is emphatically denied that Petitioners stand to gain if the BIS Standards are made public. If consumers are not aware of their rights, it is difficult for them to enforce their own rights. It is humbly submitted that it is for these reasons that BIS Standards must be made public. It is emphatically denied that Petitioners are fighting for the cause of manufacturers and Petitioners have clearly stated as much in the Writ Petition.
63. The contents of paragraph 37 of reply on merits are wrong and are emphatically denied. It is reiterated that BIS Standards have the force of law in India. It is however reiterated that BIS Standards are law and that Respondent No.2 cannot use this as ground to deny access to BIS Standards to public. Consequently, Petitioner No.1 cannot be alleged to have caused any copyright violation in respect of the same. If consumers are not aware of their rights, it is difficult for them to enforce their own rights. It is humbly submitted that it is for these reasons that BIS Standards must be made public. It is emphatically denied that Petitioners are fighting for the cause of manufacturers and Petitioners have clearly stated as much in the Writ Petition.
64. The contents of paragraph 38 of reply on merits are denied as being vague and ambiguous.
65. The contents of paragraph 39 of reply on merits are wrong and emphatically denied. It is however reiterated that BIS Standards are law and that Respondent No.2 cannot deny access to BIS Standards to public on the ground of copyright. Consequently, Petitioner No.1 cannot be alleged to have caused any copyright violation in respect of the same. Unless consumers are made aware of their rights through easy access, it would be practically difficult for them to enforce their rights. It is humbly submitted that it is for these reasons that BIS Standards must be made public. It is emphatically denied that Petitioners are fighting for the cause of manufacturers and Petitioners have clearly stated as much in the Writ Petition.
66. The contents of paragraph 40 of reply on merits do not warrant any reply in so far as it relates to transactions between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2. As regards other statements of Respondent No.2, the same are denied and the contents of paragraphs above are reiterated.
67. The contents of paragraph 41 of reply on merits do not warrant any reply in so far as it relates to transactions between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2. As regards other statements of Respondent No.2, the same are denied and the contents of paragraphs above are reiterated.
68. The contents of paragraph 42 of reply on merits are wrong and denied. It is denied that Petitioners are aggrieved by Respondent No.2’s claim of copyright. It is also denied that Petitioners are aggrieved by Respondent No.2 charging per se for BIS Standards. Petitioners’ limited relief is that for consumers and people of India to be are aware of BIS Standards, the same may be made public and not charged.

Reply to Grounds

69. In reply to Ground A1 of the reply, Petitioners submit that it is wrong and denied that only BIS Standards need to be publicized and its access is not required. It is further denied that only manufacturers need to know the BIS Standards and that consumers don’t need to know BIS Standards. It is emphatically denied that BIS Standards do not have force of law. The contents of the Writ Petition are reiterated.
70. In reply to Ground A2 of the reply, Petitioners submit that it is denied that Shri. Carl Malamud purchased any standards. The standards were purchased by Petitioner No.1. However, Petitioners are not raising issues relating to Petitioner No.1’s purchase of standards and are seeking relief in respect of Respondent No.2’s wrongful denial of access to BIS Standards on the ground of copyright.
71. In reply to Ground A3 of the reply, it is emphatically denied that Petitioners have not raised serious and important questions of public importance in the present writ petition.
72. In reply to Ground A4 of the reply, it is emphatically denied that BIS Standards are not law. It is reiterated that BIS Standards are law and that Respondent No.2 cannot deny access to BIS Standards to public.
73. In reply to Ground B1 of the reply, it is emphatically denied that Shri Carl Malamud violated the law or agreements with Respondent No.2. It is submitted in any event that Shri. Carl Malamud has not done any act in his individual capacity. It is submitted that Petitioner No.1 made available such standards, however, this issue is not subject matter of the present writ petition. No response is warranted in respect of Ground B2.
74. In reply to Ground B3 of the reply, it is reiterated that BIS Standards are law and that Respondent No.2 cannot deny access to BIS Standards to public. It is emphatically denied that there is no obligation on Respondent No.2 to make BIS Standards accessible to all.\
75. In reply to Ground B4 of the reply, Petitioners reiterate that BIS Standards are law and that Respondent No.2 cannot deny access on the ground of copyright.
76. The contents of Ground B5 of the reply are wrong and denied. The contents of the Writ Petition are reiterated.
77. The contents of Ground B6 of the reply are wrong and denied. It is denied that the averments of the corresponding paragraph of the Writ Petition are vague or ambiguous. It is submitted that the actions of Respondent No.2 are arbitrary in as much as denial of access of BIS Standards is not on justifiable grounds.
78. The contents of Ground B7 of the reply are wrong and denied. The corresponding paragraphs of the Writ Petition are reiterated.
79. The contents of Ground C1 of the reply are wrong and denied. It is denied that no ground has been made by Petitioners for relief. It is submitted that relief as claimed by Petitioners can be granted even without striking down / quashing rules / regulations.
80. Contents of Ground C2 does not warrant any reply.
81. The contents of Ground C3 does not warrant any reply. It is reiterated that while Respondent No.2 may have copyright in the BIS Standards, however, the same does not entitle Respondent No.2 to deny access to public to the BIS Standards.
82. The contents of Ground D1 are wrong and denied. It is submitted that Petitioners are not contesting copyright of Respondent No.2 in the BIS Standards. Petitioners submit that the copyright in the BIS Standard is not a ground to deny access to the public to the BIS Standards.
83. The contents of Ground D2 of the reply do not warrant any response.
84. The contents of Ground D3 of the reply are wrong and denied. It is further submitted that copyright in BIS Standards is ground to deny access to BIS Standards. It is reiterated that BIS Standards are law and therefore, access to the same cannot be prevented.
85. The contents of Ground D4 of the reply are wrong and denied. Respondent No.2 is state within the meaning of the Constitution and performs a statutory function. The BIS Standards evolved and issued by Respondent No.2 are mandatorily to be followed by manufacturers and it can be enforced by consumers in India. Therefore, merely because there is copyright in the BIS Standards, the same is no justification to deny access to the public as BIS Standards as its enforcement affects fundamental rights of people.
86. In response to Ground D5 of the reply, it is submitted that while Respondent No.2 may have copyright in the BIS Standards, Petitioners have submitted that the same cannot be a ground to deny access to public to the BIS Standards.
87. The contents of Ground D6 of the reply are denied and the corresponding paragraphs of the Writ Petition are reiterated.
88. The contents of Grounds E1, E2 and E3 of the reply do not warrant any response. As regards E3, it is submitted that Petitioners’ limited prayer is that BIS Standards should be easily made accessible to the public. Petitioners are not seeking to otherwise interfere with revenue measures of Respondent No.2.
89. The contents of Ground E4 of the reply are denied and the corresponding paragraphs of the Writ Petition are reiterated.
90. The contents of Ground E5 of the reply are wrong and emphatically denied. It is denied that the Writ Petition is a waste of time or that the prayers are liable to be rejected. It is submitted that the issues raised and relief sought are matter of public importance and deals with public’s access to important BIS Standards as the same affect their rights under the law.
91. The contents of Ground E6 of the reply are denied and the corresponding paragraphs of the Writ Petition are reiterated.
92. The contents of Ground F1 to F6 of the reply are denied and the corresponding paragraphs of the Writ Petition are reiterated.
93. The contents of paragraph 42 of the reply on merits are wrong and denied. It is submitted that neither the BIS Act nor the 2016 BIS Act provide for any mechanism by which the reliefs sought by Petitioners can be addressed. It is reiterated that Respondent No.2 is state within the meaning of the Constitution and is performing a statutory function. The BIS Standards, by virtue of the fact that the same are mandatory, have force of law and hence, access to same cannot be denied on the ground of copyright.
94. The contents of paragraphs 43 to 46 of the reply on merits do not warrant any reply.

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

1. grant relief as sought in the Writ Petition which are reiterated,
2. grant any other relief that this Hon’ble Court deems fit and appropriate in the facts of the present case.

PETITIONER

THROUGH

NISHITH DESAI ASSOCIATES

C – 5,

DEFENCE COLONY,

NEW DELHI 110024