Judgment These two writ petitions have been filed by so-called charitable trusts for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in threatening to close down the alleged purified water plants purportedly being run by them as a measure of philanthropy, as illegal and arbitrary. In their affidavits, the Secretary and Managing Trustee of the respective petitioners pleaded that the petitioners are voluntary and non-profit organizations established to provide water facility to the urban slum areas and that, with that purpose in view, they have established pure drinking water plants based on reverse osmosis (RO) technology and that they have been supplying water to the general public on ‘no loss or no profit’ basis, at a very nominal cost. They have further pleaded that at the instance of the traders involved in sale of packaged drinking water at high prices, the respondents have been interfering with the activity of the petitioners. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that under Rule 49(28) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, no person shall manufacture, sell or exhibit for sale packaged drinking water except under the Bureau of Indian Standards Certification Mark, that as the petitioners have not been selling water through packaged form, the said Rule is not attracted and that, therefore, they are not liable to take out any certificate from the Bureau of Indian Standards. While this Court does not wish to comment on the bona fides of the trusts and test whether floating of the trusts itself was to carry on the trade of sale of water without obtaining permissions from the competent authorities in the guise of rendering charitable service, it, however, has every reason to believe that trade in water, which causes health hazards to public, shall not be permitted in the guise of carrying on activities by purported charitable trusts. The purpose of prescription of Bureau of Indian Standards in respect of manufacture and sale of drinking water is to ensure that unscrupulous elements do not sell contaminated water to general public in the name of safe drinking water. No trader, in whatever name he sells, can be permitted to plead that as he is not selling the water in packaged form, he is not required to obtain certificate from the Bureau of Indian Standards or trade license from the competent authority. No trader, in whatever name he sells, can be permitted to plead that as he is not selling the water in packaged form, he is not required to obtain certificate from the Bureau of Indian Standards or trade license from the competent authority. To say that the requirement of obtaining certificate from the Bureau of Indian Standards is confined only in respect of packaged drinking water would be to render the very object behind the statutory provision otiose. If a trader is not permitted to sell water even in packaged form unless he obtains certificate from the Bureau of Indian Standards, it would be anomalous to plead that a person who sells water other than through packaged from has a free license to sell water without obtaining such certificate. In my opinion, if the petitioners have bona fides and they really intend to serve the general public, nothing prevents them from obtaining the required licenses and permissions from the competent authorities and also certificates from the Bureau of Indian Standards. The gullible public cannot be made to suffer by consuming impure or contaminated water in the name of safe drinking water. In the premises as above, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners except to the extent of directing the respondents to follow due process of law while preventing the petitioners from carrying on the manufacture and sale of water without Bureau of Indian Standards certificate and other licenses required for such activity. Subject to the above direction, the writ petitions are dismissed. As a sequel, W.P.M.P. Nos. 1752 and 1753 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.