Courts without questioning their correctness. However, in this case, the
manner in which the report has been submitted creates doubt with regard to
correctness thereof. There are various types of tests to be conducted and
even as per the procedure which has been attached alongwith the affidavit of
Dr. Kausik Ghosh, it is not possible to simultaneously carry out the tests.
It is true that we normally do not sit over the reports of the experts. But in
this case, the Respondents themselves constituted a committee to enquire into
the matter and report of the committee itself discloses that the FDDI, Chennai
does not have adequate facilities to carry out chemical tests. We also find that
the manner in which the report has been signed on 07.01.2016, which is now
stated to be signed on 11.01.2016, is not proper. This is a document of great
importance and if the head of the Institution is signing a document on a date
later to the date on which it is prepared, either he should correct the date on
the document itself or below his signature, he should clearly put the date to
show that on which date it was signed. Admittedly, Dr. Kausik Ghosh is the
head of FDDI, Chennai. For most of the period when these tests were
conducted, he was not in Chennai. No material has been placed by FDDI,
Chennai giving the names of the persons who carried out the tests, especially
the chemical test for which admittedly there are no facilities. We also find that
after this Court passed an order on 03.05.2016, tests were conducted by
FDDI, Noida and the tests reports are much more detailed and signed firstly by
the Scientists who carried out the tests and then co-signed by the Chief
Scientist of the Laboratory. This aspect is missing in the report of the FDDI,
Chennai. The FDDI, Noida has given separate test certificates with regard to
each type of test(s) conducted and we fail to understand why the same
procedure could not have been followed by the FDDI, Chennai.
In view of the above discussion, we are clearly of the view that FDDI,
Chennai did not act in the manner expected of a Government Laboratory. It
did not conduct tests properly. The tests have been conducted in a time
which is less than the minimum period required. The chemical tests were got
conducted outside and therefore, we have no option but to set aside the report
submitted by FDDI, Chennai (Annexure- R-1/3).
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (C) No. 239 of 2016
M/s XO Footwear Pvt. Ltd.,
V
1. Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (Trading & Development) Cooperative
Federation Limited,
Hon'ble Shri Deepak Gupta, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri P. Sam Koshy, J.
Dated:03 /08/2016
Citation:AIR 2016(NOC)619 CHH
