1986 (9) TMI 412 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether Rule 3 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Punjab) Rules, 1958 is ultra vires the State Government.
2. Whether the Food (Health) Authority could sub-delegate its powers to the Food Inspector.

Summary:

Issue 1: Ultra Vires of Rule 3
The appellants contended that Rule 3 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Punjab) Rules, 1958, framed under s. 24(2)(e) of the Act, was ultra vires the State Government. They argued that the rule allowed the Food (Health) Authority to sub-delegate its power to launch prosecutions, which was not permissible under s. 20(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the rule must be read subject to the provisions of s. 20(1) of the Act, which does not envisage further delegation by the person authorised. Therefore, Rule 3 could not be construed to authorise sub-delegation of powers by the Food (Health) Authority to the Food Inspector. Consequently, the notification dated October 10, 1968, delegating powers to the Food (Health) Authority, and the subsequent notification dated September 7, 1972, authorising the Food Inspector to launch prosecutions, were declared ultra vires and void.

Issue 2: Sub-Delegation of Powers
The appellants argued that even if Rule 3 was considered a general order under s. 20(1) of the Act, the Food (Health) Authority could not sub-delegate its powers to the Food Inspector. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the terms of s. 20(1) do not postulate further delegation by the person authorised. The Food Inspector, Faridkot, was not a person authorised by any general or special order issued by the Central Government or the State Government. The Court emphasised that the requirements of s. 20(1) are imperative and must be strictly followed. The Food Inspector's authority to launch prosecutions was invalid as it was not conferred by the State Government directly.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the Food Inspector, Faridkot, was not competent to lodge the complaint against the appellants for an offence under s. 16(1)(a)(ii) read with s. 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The appeal was allowed, and the judgments of the High Court and the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate were set aside.