A. P. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has sought for quashing the order dt. 11/05/1990 (Annexure 16 to the petition), passed by the Director of the Bureau of Indian Standards, Lucknow directing the petitioner to send the industrial licence or a letter of indent from the Central Government and permission from Directorate of Vanaspati according approval to manufacture of Vanaspati by it within fourteen days, otherwise the application for the grant of licence will be treated as closed without any further correspondence, and further to direct the respondent to complete the processing of the application of the petitioner for the grant of licence to use the standards mark forthwith. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a public limited company and has established a manufacturing unit for the manufacture of Vanaspati ghee. The said unit has been granted provisional registration certificate by the Director of Industries, U. P. as a small scale unit. On 20th Jan. , 1989, and 19th Jan. , 1990, the petitioner also obtained licence under the U. P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licencing and Restriction on Holdings), Order, 1989 and the unit of the petitioner is also registered under the U. P. Sales Tax Act. According to the petitioner, its manufacturing unit has been completed and the production of Vanaspati ghee has also commenced. This manufacturing unit is further regulated by two control Orders, viz. Vegetable Oil Products Control Order, 1947, and Vegetable Oil Products (Standard of Quality) Order, 1975. Under cl. 14 of the Vegetable Oil Products Control Order, 1947, the Vegetable Oil Products Controller for India is empowered to specify the specification of container etc. in which the vegetable oil products is to be marketed. Under this clause every container of vegetable oil manufactured by the petitioner is required to specify apart from other details, the I. S. I. certification mark specified under the Indian Standards Institution (Certification Marks) Act, 1952. Thereafter the Central Government issued Vegetable Oil Products (Standards of Quality) Order, 1975, by means of a notification dt. 30/05/1975, which was further amended by means of a notification dt. 4/07/1985, with effect from 1/10/1985. As per the petitioners case the only restriction under the aforesaid Order of 1975 as amended in respect of vegetable oil product is that the same should conform to the I. S. I. specifications for Vanaspati Ghee and shall carry the I. S. I. Certification mark. 4/07/1985, with effect from 1/10/1985. As per the petitioners case the only restriction under the aforesaid Order of 1975 as amended in respect of vegetable oil product is that the same should conform to the I. S. I. specifications for Vanaspati Ghee and shall carry the I. S. I. Certification mark. The petitioner contends that Vanaspati Ghee manufactured by the petitioner is in full conformity with the I. S. I. specification for Vanaspati. Before the 1952 Act, the Indian Standards Institution was set up in pursuance of a resolution of the Government of India dt. 3rd Sept. , 1946. The aforesaid 1952 Act did not contain any provision requiring compulsory user of the standard mark with regard to any particular article, nor did it confer any power upon the Institution to notify any article or process so as to require compulsory licence or compulsory user of the Standard Mark. ( 3 ) THEN, in the year 1986, the Parliament promulgated the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986, which established a Bureau under the name of Bureau of Indian Standards as statutory corporation and repealed the 1952 Act. S. 10 of 1986 Act confers power on the Bureau to specify the standard marks and to grant licence for the use of the standard mark. According to the petitioner, the authorities informed under the Control Orders, referred to above, that it would be necessary to put I. S. I. certification mark on the items for sale and for that it would be necessary to obtain licence. On that basis, the petitioner applied on the 6th Feb. , 1990, for the grant of licence for use of standard mark before the Director of Bureau of Indian Standards Lucknow. Thereafter the petitioner was required to submit an application in triplicate along with the draft of Rs. 500; - which was done by the petitioner on the 7th Mar. , 1990. On the 14th Mar. , 1990 a communication was received from the Deputy Director that preliminary inspection would be conducted on 3rd Apr. , 1990. The petitioners case is that in spite of the said letter the petitioners application remained pending till this date, and no further follow up action has been taken by the respondents. In fact, no inspection was conducted on the 3rd Apr. , 1990 as referred in the previous letter from the respondent or on any subsequent date. , 1990. The petitioners case is that in spite of the said letter the petitioners application remained pending till this date, and no further follow up action has been taken by the respondents. In fact, no inspection was conducted on the 3rd Apr. , 1990 as referred in the previous letter from the respondent or on any subsequent date. ( 4 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that, on account of this in the absence of grant of licence to the petitioner for use of the standard mark he is precluded from marketting the Vanaspati Ghee manufactured by it and as a consequence thereof he has suffered huge loss. The current capacity of the petitioner unit is for producing 25 Metric tonnes per day. Further, the case of the petitioner is that even after intimating as aforesaid the preliminary inspection to be done on 3rd Apr. 1990, when no inspection was conducted one of the Director of the petitioner company met the Director, Bureau of Indian Standards, Lucknow on 12th Apr. , 1990, for expeditious consideration of the formalities for testing of the sample of the manufactured Vanaspati Ghee. The Director categorically declined to conduct any proceeding with regard to the petitioners application for the grant of licence to use the standard marks on the ground that the petitioner does not possess any industrial licence under the provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, for the manufacture of Vanaspati Ghee. It is in the light of this ultimately an order was passed on 11/05/1990 (Annexure 16 to the petition) by the respondent refusing to process the application unless the petitioner obtained industrial licence or letter of indent under 1951 Act and permission from the Directorate of Vanaspati according approval to manufacture of Vanaspati. ( 5 ) EARLIER, the petitioner had filed a writ petition in this Court (Civil Misc. Writ No. 18538 of 1989, which was allowed on 11th Dec. , 1989, and order dt. 10th Apr. , 1989, cancelling petitioners provisional registration certificate was set aside and farther quashed the communication dt. 17th Oct. , 1989. According to the said communication the petitioners unit needed industrial licence under the 1951 Act as referred in the impugned order in the present writ petition. , 1989, and order dt. 10th Apr. , 1989, cancelling petitioners provisional registration certificate was set aside and farther quashed the communication dt. 17th Oct. , 1989. According to the said communication the petitioners unit needed industrial licence under the 1951 Act as referred in the impugned order in the present writ petition. The ground for quashing this communication was that the provisions of the said Act are inapplicable to a unit where only 41 workers were shown to be working in the said factory. This judgment was modified in Civil Appeal No. 3870 of 1990 by the Supreme Court (arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7469 of 1990) which was as under : -"the High Courts order setting aside the impugned order cancelling provisional registration is unassailable. However, the further order granting relief to the effect that the provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 are not attracted cannot be allowed to stand firstly because it was not necessary to go into that question when the impugned order was quashed on the ground that it violates the principles of natural justice and also because the Union of India was not a party to the petition before the High Court Besides, much would depend on the number of workmen found to be actually employed in the Industry"thus, the decision of this Court in the petitioners case earlier as aforesaid in respect of the inapplicability of the aforesaid 1951 Act for obtaining industrial licence still remain open especially as the Central Government was not a party to the said petition. This question was again raised before us by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The instant writ petition was heard along with the writ petition filed by M/s. K. R. Foods Pvt. Ltd. and another (Civil Misc. Writ No. 1966 of 1989) wherein this identical question was raised by the petitioner there and the procedural infirmity was not there as the Central Government was a party and this point stands disposed of in the said writ petition and the question of law raised in that writ petition was permitted to be argued by the respondents in the present writ petition, about which we shall be referring in the later part of this judgment. Thus, the case of the petitioner is, neither there is provision for obtaining industrial licence of the petitioner unit under the aforesaid 1951 Act, nor under the provisions of the aforesaid 1986 Act for obtaining the said licence, as a pre-condition for the grant of licence for ISI certification and further there is no provision requiring any permission from the Directorate of Vanaspati. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the respondents in the counter-affidavit reliance has been placed on the two notifications dt. 16th Feb. , 1973 and 30/06/1988, under S. 29-B of the aforesaid Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the IDR Act of 1951) to contend that exemptions from the licensing provisions of the said 1dr Act of 1951 were not applicable to the industries included in Schedule IV to the 1973 notification and Schedule I or II of 1988 notification in respect of both class of industries specified in the table. The respondents reiterated that it is incumbent on the petitioner to obtain licence under the aforesaid IDR Act of 1951. Further, the case of the respondents is that the Bureaus Lucknow office noted that the petitioner was not having some testing facilities, and thus the petitioner was advised to complete the same and confirm that 3rd Apr. , 1990, suited them for preliminary inspection but no confirmation was received from the petitioner. They further reiterated that the requirement as per the impugned order is to be completed by the petitioner. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner reiterated that, in fact, the respondents never inspected the petitioners unit for confirming whether it has testing unit or not or whether any other requirement in accordance with the Act and rules of aforesaid 1988 Act as a prerequisite before granting licence has been complied with or not on the ground that the petitioner has not obtained any industrial licence under IDR Act. Finally, through supplementary rejoinder affidavit the petitioner annexed the order dt. 11/06/1990, passed by the respondents rejecting petitioners application on two grounds as referred to in the aforesaid impugned order dt. 11/05/1990. Finally, through supplementary rejoinder affidavit the petitioner annexed the order dt. 11/06/1990, passed by the respondents rejecting petitioners application on two grounds as referred to in the aforesaid impugned order dt. 11/05/1990. ( 7 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, it was contended that both the reasons for rejection of petitioners application is not sustainable in the eye of law as the insistance of respondents for the petitioner to get a licence under the IDR Act of 1951 is illegal as neither the said Act requires the petitioners unit obtaining licence, nor the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986, prescribe a prerequisite of obtaining licence under the said Act before a licence could be granted or before an order is passed under S. 14 of the said Act. Similarly, there is no provision which requires the petitioner to obtain permission from the Director of Vanaspati according approval to manufacture of Vanaspati for the purpose of obtaining ISI certification. ( 8 ) SO far as the first point is concerned that a point raised in this petition is identical to the question raised in the writ petition of M/s. R. R. Foods Pvt. Ltd. (supra) which we have decided along with this petition and since both the parties to this petition were also heard simultaneously the declaration of law made therein would fully apply to the first point raised in the present case. We have held, the aforesaid two notifications issued under S. 29-B of the aforesaid IDR Act of 1951 on the 16th Feb. , 1973 and 30/06/1988, are notifications issued by the Central Government for the grant of exemptions in special cases. Those notifications merely speaks about exemptions of such units from the provisions of the Act if the Central Government is of such opinion. Section 29-B is merely power of the Central Government to grant exemption, but through notification could not enable section to give-power to bring forth an industrial undertaking of the said Act requiring licencing of an industrial undertaking, which otherwise is not required to be registered under the said Act. We have held an industrial undertaking having less than fifty workers where the factory is run with the aid of power does not require the licensing under the said Act. Thus, the only question remains whether the petitioners unit has less than fifty workers in its unit or not. We have held an industrial undertaking having less than fifty workers where the factory is run with the aid of power does not require the licensing under the said Act. Thus, the only question remains whether the petitioners unit has less than fifty workers in its unit or not. This is a question of fact, which cannot be gone into in the present case. It is always open to the respondents to inspect the factory and if at any time it is revealed that the number of workers are fifty or more they could always insist for the petitioner to obtain licence under the aforesaid Act. But so long the petitioners workers are less than fifty the insistence of the respondents would not be justified. If the petitioners unit has fifty or more workers then the petitioner is duty bound to obtain licence under the aforesaid Act. However, the case of the petitioner in the present case is that they have less than fifty workers. In fact, in the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3870 of 1990 decided on 7th Aug. ,1990, in the matter of the petitioner it was specifically recorded "besides, much would depend on the number of workmen found to be actually employed in the industry. " This is a matter in which we are deliberately not going into the present writ petition and left the matter on the respondents, but the respondents cannot insist on petitioners obtaining the said licence as a precondition unless they find on inspection that the petitioner unit has fifty or more workers in terms of the judgment delivered by us in the petition of M/s. K. R. Foods Pvt. Ltd. (supra ). ( 9 ) COMING to the second point strong reliance was placed on behalf of the respondents on the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations, 1988, which was issued in terms of the power conferred under S. 38 of the aforesaid Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986. ( 10 ) REGULATION 3 prescribes the manner of applying for licence. Apart from other matters it requires evidence to be produced that the applicant has in operation a scheme of routine inspection and testing, which will adequately ensure that all marked products shall conform to the Indian Standards. ( 10 ) REGULATION 3 prescribes the manner of applying for licence. Apart from other matters it requires evidence to be produced that the applicant has in operation a scheme of routine inspection and testing, which will adequately ensure that all marked products shall conform to the Indian Standards. Regulation 4 is for grant of licence, which specifies :-"if the Bureau, after a preliminary inquiry, is satisfied that the applicant is fit to use the Standard Mark, the Bureau shall get a licence in Form II authorising the use of the Standard Mark in respect of the article or class of articles manufactured by the applicant. "and where the Bureau, after a preliminary inquiry, is of the opinion that a licence should not be granted, the Bureau shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard before rejecting the application. It is in this light on the 14th Mar. , 1990, a letter (Annexure 15 to the petition) was sent by the respondents to the petitioner to offer a tested lot for independent testing during the preliminary inspection on 3rd Apr. , 1990, and this date of inspection was sought to be confirmed from the petitioner. This indicates initially the respondents appreciated the matter in terms of this regulation for making the preliminary testing, but after this as per the affidavit filed by the parties there is nothing on record to show that actual preliminary testing was done by the respondents. Thereafter, on 16/04/1990, another letter (Annexure 10 to the rejoinder affidavit) was sent from the respondents to the petitioner in continuation of the earlier letter requiring the petitioner to complete the lab for testing of the product. It was mentioned that the items were referred therein for which testing facilities were not available from the list submitted to them. Thereafter, on 15/05/1990 (Annexure 1 l to the rejoinder affidavit) the petitioner replied to the respondents with reference to the aforesaid letter for having made arrangements for the testing facilities to the items mentioned in the earlier letter. It was further mentioned, so far as testing facility for animal fat was concerned the petitioners were making necessary inquiry for arranging this test facility also as early as possible. It was further mentioned, so far as testing facility for animal fat was concerned the petitioners were making necessary inquiry for arranging this test facility also as early as possible. In paragraph 4 of the supplementary rejoinder affidavit the petitioner averred that subsequent to that letter the petitioner had installed even the equipment for the purpose of testing the animal fat in its manufacturing unit and thus the petitioner unit is equipped with all testing units required by the respondents. According to the petitioner, in fact, before the testing could be made by the respondents as is evident from the impugned order dt. 11/05/1990, the respondents decided not to grant licence to the petitioner in view of the reasons disclosed therein which does not contain the lack of testing facility by the petitioner. This was followed by the final order dt. 11/06/1990, cancelling petitioners application, which is Annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit. ( 11 ) FROM the affidavits on the record, it is clear that whether the petitioner unit lack the testing facility as per requirement of the provisions of the relevant Act and rules or not has not yet been examined by the respondents as no preliminary inquiry has yet been made in this regard. If the petitioner has not complied with any of the requirement of the rules and law it is always open to the respondents not to grant licence under the relevant provisions unless he complies with the requirement including the requirement of all the testing facilities. However, on the basis of record it cannot be concluded that the respondents have come to any conclusion after any inquiry that the petitioner lacks the testing facility. ( 12 ) ON behalf of the respondents as an alternative strong reliance was placed on S. 24 of the aforesaid 1986 Act, which is quoted below:-"24. Power of Central Government to issue directions.- (1) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this Act, the Bureau shall, in the exercise of its powers or the performance of its functions under this Act, be bound by such directions on questions of policy as the Central Government may give in writing to it from time to time : provided that the Bureau shall, as far as practicable, be given an opportunity to express its view before any direction is given under this sub-section. (2) The decision of the Central Government whether a question is one of policy or not shall be final. "on behalf of the Bureau, it was contended, in view of this the respondent Bureau was bound by any direction or policy issued by the Central Government from time to time. The contention is that the letter dt. 10/06/1988, and 2nd Aug. , 1988 (Annexures 5 and 6 respectively to the counter-affidavit) are in effect the directions issued by the Central Government under which the Bureau has not to allow any registration of units under small scale sector for issue of mark except those units which were already holding licence under IDR Act be issued mark (sic) out of the aforesaid two letters, first letter dt. 10/06/1988, is issued by the Deputy Director under the Directorate of Vanaspati, Vegetable Oils and Fats, issued to the Chief Executive, Oswal Vanaspati and Central Industries, Ludhiana pertaining to issue of Vanaspati licences in Small Scale Sector by Director of Industries, Punjab, Chandigarh. This letter could not be said to be an order issued by the Central Government under S. 24 of the said Act, (or?) as a policy decision. Firstly, it pertains to the issuance of Vanaspati licences in Small Scale Sector by Director of Industries, Punjab and Chandigarh addressed to a firm at Ludhiana, and secondly, it was issued by the Deputy Director (Van ). Even if it could be treated to be an order, under the said section it cannot be said to be any policy decision. It merely refers that Vanaspati industry being a composit and compact unit all the processes have to be carried out in the same premises. Hence, it concluded, unless a party resorts to some dubious method, such unit cannot be set up. However, this doubt cannot bring within the purview of the word "factory" as defined under S. 3 (c) of the IDR Act of 1951 if it is not otherwise there and thus it concludes that the issue of the registration certificate by the said Director of Industries for setting up of such unit in the small scale sector is not tenable. Firstly, this in no case could be treated as direction issued to the respondent Bureau under S. 24 and if at all it only refers to the Bureau pertaining to the registration of small scale industry in Punjab. Firstly, this in no case could be treated as direction issued to the respondent Bureau under S. 24 and if at all it only refers to the Bureau pertaining to the registration of small scale industry in Punjab. So far as the second letter dt. 2nd Aug. , 1988, (Annexure 6 to the Counter-affidavit) is concerned, it is a letter issued by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies, New Delhi. This refers to number of units got registered as small scale industrial units for manufacturing of Vanaspati which created a situation resulting in unregulated growth of the vanaspati industry creating problems akin to those being experienced in the case of the vegetable oil industry where by virtue of its highly decentralised nature, the Government is finding it difficult to exercise effective control over them. It refers also to the letter issued on 10/06/1988. Finally, it refers to the communication from a vanaspati unit registered in the small scale sector that the BIS officials have undertaken inspection of the manufacturing facilities available with the unit and the same had been found to be absolutely satisfactory for the manufacture of vanaspati. This led into the anxiety resulting in three concluding lines of the said letter wherein it was stated :-"i am to request you to look into the matter personally and to ensure that no ISI certification mark is issued to any vanaspati unit registered in the small scale sector. "this is merely the anxiety expressed as an interim measure to examine the matter as to how a Vanaspati unit having been registered in the small scale sector have been found on inspection having all the manufacturing facilities. On bare interpretation of this letter it is true the last three lines as aforesaid is the anxiety expressed and direction is issued as an interim measure for proper and thorough examination and till then not to issue ISI certification mark in the small scale sector. This could, in our opinion, not be treated to be a policy decision under S. 24 of the aforesaid act. It is always open to the respondent to make thorough inspection of the unit to test whether the unit established under small scale sector complies with all the conditions prescribed under the Act and rules or not. The composite treading of letters dt. 10/06/1988 and 2nd Aug. It is always open to the respondent to make thorough inspection of the unit to test whether the unit established under small scale sector complies with all the conditions prescribed under the Act and rules or not. The composite treading of letters dt. 10/06/1988 and 2nd Aug. , 1988 (Annexures 5 and 6 respectively to the counter-affidavit) could at the best be the anxiety of the respondent, the Central Government of having not been able to make effective control over such industrial unit coming forward and also for proper inspection examination of such unit, but it could not be read as a policy decision to refuse granting licence and refuse to issue ISI certification as a policy even if unit is found to be equipped with all the requirements of law. As we have said above, at the most, the said two letters express anxiety for proper and thorough examination of such units before ISI certification mark is issued, but in no way it could be read as a policy decision under S. 24 to refuse issuance of the same unless the licence is obtained by such unit under IDR Act of 1951. ( 13 ) FURTHER, the power under S. 24 could be exercised by the Central Government only for the purpose of giving direction on the question of policy under the aforesaid 1986 Act, but under its garb cannot extend to either bringing forth a condition as a pre-requisite for the grant of ISI certification, which is not founded under the said Act or rules framed therein. If the argument on behalf of the respondent is accepted then such policy decision would transgress beyond its permissible limits as it would amount to curtailing and restricting rights of the petitioner which is not to be found either under the Act or Rules. A statute giving right to an authority for a policy decision is only to enforce the provisions of an Act and rules in consonance with it and its spirit but it does not empower to enforce under it beyond the very statute which gave it such power. This policy decision was extended to enforce the petitioner to obtain industrial licence or letter of indent under IDR Act which if not required under the said Act would be asking to perform an impossible task and would thus even otherwise would be redundant. This policy decision was extended to enforce the petitioner to obtain industrial licence or letter of indent under IDR Act which if not required under the said Act would be asking to perform an impossible task and would thus even otherwise would be redundant. The power of the Central Government is only to give direction to the Bureau for effective application of the law under the said provision and to give direction from time to time to eliminate the difficulty which may come in the way of the Bureau under the provisions of the Act and rules in terms as laid down. However, this power in no way could amount to give a direction for compliance of something which is not provided under the provisions of this Act. If the petitioner-unit has not complied with any condition as laid down under the Act or the rules it is always open to the respondents to refuse the petitioner to grant the licence or issuance of ISI certification mark but not otherwise. ( 14 ) IN the present case, as we have held above, if the petitioner-unit is not found to have workers 50 or more in its industrial undertaking it does not require any registration under IDAR Act and no other provision has been brought to our notice under which the registration is necessary. The only point which we feel and is apparent from the rules framed under the 1986 Act is that the petitioner must confirm that all the testing facilities which are required by the respondent is possessed by the petitioner. If anything has not been complied with by the petitioner, the respondent can always insist in its compliance. However, in the present case, we find, in spite of the letter as aforesaid by the petitioner or having complied with all the conditions no inquiry or inspection has yet been made by the respondents. ( 15 ) IN view of the aforesaid findings, we quash the letter dt. 11/05/1990 (Annexure 16 to the petition) and the letter dt. 11/06/1990 (Annexure 1 to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit) requiring the petitioner to obtain industrial licence or a letter of indent from the Central Government and permission from Directorate of Vanaspati thereby cancelling the petitioners application for the grant of ISI certification under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 and further direct the respondent to reconsider this application afresh. 11/06/1990 (Annexure 1 to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit) requiring the petitioner to obtain industrial licence or a letter of indent from the Central Government and permission from Directorate of Vanaspati thereby cancelling the petitioners application for the grant of ISI certification under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 and further direct the respondent to reconsider this application afresh. We further make it clear that if on inspection by the respondents or the State Government at any time they come to the conclusion on existing facts that the petitioner-unit has 50 or more workers on any day of the preceding twelve months they may insist the petitioner to obtain licence under the aforesaid IDR Act of 1951, but till that is done they will not refuse to issue licence/certification of ISI marks as a general rule. We further direct the respondents to make inspection required to see whether the petitioner-unit conforms with the requirement of having the testing facilities as desired by the respondents earlier and consider the application of the petitioner filed earlier afresh and pass necessary orders expeditiously. ( 16 ) WHEN the writ petition was filed the petitioner merely sought for quashing the letter dt. 11/05/1990, but during the pendency of this petition specific order cancelling the petitioners application for the grant of licence was rejected on the 11/06/1990, which has been brought to our notice by filing it as Annexure 1 to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit. Since this order was passed during the pendency of the writ petition and this goes to the root of the matter we have heard learned counsel for the parties on this matter and have adjudicated on this also, by holding this order also to be illegal. ( 17 ) WITH the aforesaid observations, this petition is allowed with costs. Petition allowed. .