2014 (8) TMI 1058 - HC - Customs

Whether the impugned Advisories which have been issued by Respondent No.2 have the force of law and are within the ambit and scope of the power conferred on Respondent No.2 Food Authority under the provisions of the said Act and Rules and Regulations framed thereunder - Held that - this is answered in terms of the views taken by one of us viz. V.M. Kanade, J. and the learned third Judge Ranjit More, J. who have held in their orders that the impugned Advisory viz. Product Approval Advisory dated 11/05/2013 issued by Respondent No.2 does not have force of law and is not within the ambit and scope of the power conferred on the Food Authority under the FSS Act and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. Whether Respondent No.2 Food Authority had the power and authority to issue these Advisories under section 16(1) read with section 16(5) read with sections 18 and 22 of the said Act without following the procedure laid down under Sections 92 and 93 of the Act of placing the Advisories/Regulations before both the Houses of Parliament - Held that - view taken by majority prevails and accordingly it is held that the Food Authority did not have power and authority to issue these Advisories under sections 16(1) read with section 16(5) read with sections 18 and 22 of the said Act without following the procedure laid down under Sections 92 and 93 of the Act of placing the Advisories/Regulations before both the Houses of Parliament. - Petition allowed and disposed of by virtue of majority view taken

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the impugned Advisories issued by Respondent No.2 have the force of law and are within the scope of the power conferred on the Food Authority under the Act and Regulations?
2. Whether the Food Authority had the power to issue the Advisories without following the procedure laid down under the Act?

Analysis:
1. The High Court addressed the first issue regarding the force of law of the Advisories. One judge, V.M. Kanade, J., opined that the Advisories, specifically the one related to product approval, do not have the force of law. Another judge, G.S. Kulkarni, J., disagreed with this view. The matter was then referred to a third judge, Ranjit More, J., who concurred with V.M. Kanade, J.'s view that the impugned Advisory on product approval does not have the force of law and is beyond the power of the Food Authority under the Act and Regulations.

2. Regarding the second issue on the authority of the Food Authority to issue the Advisories, V.M. Kanade, J. held that the Food Authority did not have the power to issue the Advisories without following the prescribed procedure of placing them before both Houses of Parliament. G.S. Kulkarni, J. had a different opinion on this matter. The third judge, Ranjit More, J., aligned with V.M. Kanade, J.'s view, stating that the Food Authority lacked the authority to issue the impugned Advisory on Product Approval without following the statutory procedure.

3. The majority view, as per V.M. Kanade, J. and Ranjit More, J., prevailed in both issues. The High Court concluded that the impugned Product Approval Advisory issued by the Food Authority does not have the force of law and is beyond the authority conferred upon the Food Authority under the Act and Regulations. Consequently, the petition was allowed and disposed of based on the majority view.

4. The judgment emphasized that the Food Authority must adhere to the statutory procedures laid down in the Act, specifically Sections 92 and 93, when issuing Advisories to ensure compliance with the legal framework and parliamentary oversight. The parties were directed to act in accordance with the court's decision authenticated by the Registry.