9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 1058X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. Hariharan with Mr. S.D. Bhosle i/b H.P. Chaturvedi for Respondent No.1. - Union of India. Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy i/b Legal Axis for Respondent No.2 P.C.:- 1. By an order dated 28/01/2014, we had requested the Hon'ble Chief Justice to refer the points of reference which were framed by us either before the larger Bench or before the third Judge of this Court. Following points of reference w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 11/05/2013 pertaining to product approval does not have force of law. Similarly, so far as point of reference No. (2) above is concerned, it was held by one of us viz. V.M. Kanade, J. that Respondent No.2 - 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 Act without following the procedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respondent No.2 - Food Authority under the provisions of the FSS Act, the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. Further it is held that respondent No.2 - Food Authority had no power and authority to issue the impugned advisory on Product Approval under Section 16(1), read with section 16(5), read with sections 18 and 22 of the FSS Act, without following the procedure laid down under Sections ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concerned, 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. &n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
