2012 (9) TMI 1121 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the impugned regulations and statutory order under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
2. Whether the Cigarettes Act, 2003 occupies the entire field or if the Food Safety Act, 2006 is the comprehensive law on the subject.
3. Violation of petitioners' fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 301, and 304 of the Constitution.
4. Requirement of following principles of natural justice by the Food Safety Commissioner.
5. Position prior to 19 July 2012.

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of the Impugned Regulations and Statutory Order
The petitioners, companies engaged in manufacturing and distributing pan masala and gutka, challenged the validity of Regulation 2.3.4 and Regulation 3.1.7 of the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition & Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011 and the statutory order dated 19 July 2012 issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety, Maharashtra State, u/s 30(2)(a) of the Food Safety Act. The regulations prohibit the use of tobacco and nicotine in any food products and restrict the use of anticaking agents.

Issue 2: Cigarettes Act, 2003 vs. Food Safety Act, 2006
The petitioners argued that the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisements) and Regulation of Trade & Commerce, Production, Supply & Distribution Act, 2003 (COTPA) is a "comprehensive law on tobacco" and that the Food Safety Act, 2006 does not cover tobacco products. However, the court held that the Food Safety Act, 2006 is a comprehensive legislation on food safety, which includes gutka and pan masala, and that the 2011 Regulations under the Food Safety Act prevail over the COTPA Act, 2003.

Issue 3: Violation of Fundamental Rights
The petitioners claimed that the impugned order violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Ghodawat, which held that a total ban on gutka was unreasonable. However, the court noted that the harmful effects of gutka and pan masala were now well-documented, and the Food Safety Act, 2006, along with the 2011 Regulations, aimed to ensure safe and wholesome food. The court found that the prohibition was a reasonable restriction in the interest of public health.

Issue 4: Principles of Natural Justice
The petitioners contended that the Food Safety Commissioner should have given them an opportunity to be heard before issuing the impugned order. The court held that the Food Safety Commissioner, acting as a delegate of Parliament, issued a legislative order under section 30(2)(a) of the Food Safety Act, 2006. Therefore, the principles of natural justice did not apply.

Issue 5: Position Prior to 19 July 2012
The petitioners argued that there was no total ban on gutka and pan masala prior to the impugned order. The court noted that the 2011 Regulations were laid before Parliament and not modified, indicating legislative intent to include gutka and pan masala within the scope of the Food Safety Act, 2006.

Conclusion:
The court rejected all prayers for interim reliefs, including the prayer for interim stay against the implementation of the impugned statutory order dated 19 July 2012. The court found that the Food Safety Act, 2006 is a comprehensive legislation on food safety, and the impugned regulations and order were in the interest of public health and did not violate the petitioners' fundamental rights.