2004 (8) TMI 692 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether notifications issued by the Food (Health) Authority under Section 7(iv) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) by which the manufacture, sale, storage and distribution of pan masala and gutka (pan masala containing tobacco) were banned for different periods valid?

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notifications issued by the Food (Health) Authority under Section 7(iv) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
2. Power of the State Government versus the Central Government under the Act.
3. Conflict between the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003.
4. Constitutional validity of the notifications under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
5. Whether pan masala and gutka are considered "food" under the Act.
6. Procedural fairness and natural justice in issuing the notifications.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notifications:
The core issue was the power of the Food (Health) Authority to issue prohibitory orders under Section 7(iv) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The appellants challenged the notifications banning the manufacture, sale, storage, and distribution of pan masala and gutka on the grounds that such power was vested solely with the Central Government under Section 23 of the Act. The Supreme Court concluded that Section 7(iv) is not an independent source of power for the state authority and that the power of the Food (Health) Authority is transitory, intended to address local emergencies, and cannot be used for long-term or permanent bans.

2. Power of State Government vs. Central Government:
The appellants argued that the Act vests the power to declare a substance injurious to health only with the Central Government under Section 23, not the State Government. The Court agreed, stating that the power to prohibit the manufacture, sale, and distribution of articles injurious to health belongs appropriately to the Central Government, exercised through rules made under Section 23(1A)(f). The State Government's power under Section 24 is limited and cannot encroach upon the domain of Section 23.

3. Conflict Between Acts:
The appellants contended that the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003, which regulates the trade and commerce of tobacco products, conflicts with the notifications issued under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Court found that the 2003 Act, being a special and later enactment, overrides the provisions of the 1954 Act concerning the prohibition of tobacco products. The 2003 Act does not impose a total ban but only restricts sales to minors, highlighting a legislative intent to regulate rather than prohibit.

4. Constitutional Validity:
The appellants argued that the notifications violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The Court held that the notifications were unconstitutional as they imposed unreasonable and excessive restrictions on the appellants' right to trade. The prohibition was deemed excessive, particularly since the sale of pure tobacco was not banned, and the restriction on pan masala and gutka was not commensurate with the alleged health risks.

5. Definition of "Food":
The Court addressed whether pan masala and gutka fall under the definition of "food" as per Section 2(v) of the Act. It concluded that these products are considered "food" since they are consumed by humans, aligning with the broad definition provided in the Act.

6. Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice:
The Court noted that the principles of natural justice were not followed in issuing the notifications. Affected parties were not given an opportunity to present their case or respond to the material used to justify the ban. This lack of procedural fairness rendered the notifications invalid.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and writ petition, setting aside the impugned judgments of the Bombay High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court. The notifications were quashed as ultra vires, unconstitutional, void, illegal, and unenforceable. The Court emphasized that the power to issue such prohibitory orders lies with the Central Government and must be exercised following due process and within the bounds of legislative competence.

← Previous Next →