Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Neel-19 Feb.2016 Prem Prakash vs. M.P. PWD
Neel-19 Feb.2016 Prem Prakash vs. M.P. PWD
Neel-19 Feb.2016 Prem Prakash vs. M.P. PWD
NEW DELHI
CORAM
In the matter of :
Prem Prakash,
Proprietor of Venus Testing and
Research Laboratory,
Industrial Area, Khurai Road,
BINA, Dist. : Sagar,
Madhya Pradesh – 470113. … Appellant
Versus
ORDER
2002 (for short ‘the Act’) is the question which arises for consideration in this
dominant position by Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and closed the case under
Laboratory which deals in chemical material testing etc. The appellant claims
that his laboratory has been assessed by the Accreditation Commission for
19(1)(a) against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 alleging that they have refused to
consider his laboratory for testing material on the ground that it has not been
of Laboratories.
only.
4
Enclosure:- Nil
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“Government of Madhya Pradesh
tentatively for the Bhopal zone and Sagar Zone only, the
Condition.
(R.K. Mehra)
Additional Secretary
M.P. Government, Public Works Department, Bhopal,
Dated : __ September, 2013
F.58/5/2012/19/Ya
Copy to:-
Additional Secretary
M.P. Government, Public Works Department, Bhopal,
Dated : __ September, 2013”
“Existing Provision :
such testing. Therefore the need arise for carrying out the
Modified Provision :
following manner:-
laboratory.
grievance made by the appellant on the ground that the Opposite Parties do
not come under the definition of ‘enterprise’ in terms of Section 2(h) of the Act
activities. The relevant portions of the impugned order are extracted below :
instant case.
Subways etc.
laboratories.
12
concern.”
[Underlining is ours]
within the definition of the term ‘enterprise’ under Section 2(h) of the Act and
answered the same in affirmative by recording a detailed order and set aside
8. By relying upon the order passed in Rajat Verma’s case, which shall be
read as part of this order, we hold that the view taken by the Commission on
13
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside
and the matter is remitted to the Commission for considering whether the
10. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this order shall
[G.S. Singhvi]
Chairman
[Rajeev Kher]
Member