9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elaxation and the application shall contain all the details and supported by documentary proof. Petition disposed off - decided in favor of petitioner. - W. P. No. 21791 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 21-7-2016 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.T. Saikrishnan for M/s.Sai Bahrath and Ilan For the Respondent : Mr. Su.Srinivasan, Assit. Solicitor General Mr.A.P.Srinivas, SPC, Ms.H.Yasmeen Ali ORDER Heard Mr.T.Saikrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the first respondent and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned standing counsel for the second respondent and Ms.H.Yasmeen Ali, learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4, and with their consent, the writ petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not mentioning of name and complete address of the manufacturer/packer. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the guidelines issued by the Government of India dated 23.03.2012 is applied to the case of the petitioner, the import of the food item could be permitted. 6. I have considered somewhat an identical issue in the case of Kantilal N.Shah v. The Authorised Officer, FSSAI, Chennai, and others (W.P.No.40168 of 2015, dated 03.06.2016). In the said writ petition, the product which was imported was Olive Oil and similar objection was raised by the Food Safety Authority and a rejection report was submitted. This Court, after considering the materials placed before it, pointed out that the technical matters have to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s which are contained in the product should be disclosed in the label as required under the Regulations. However, these issues being technical matters have to be considered by the competent authority under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. 8. It is noteworthy to mention that in the impugned order dated 24.11.2015, the 1st respondent, after coming to the conclusion that the labelling requirements are not satisfying, has observed that one time relaxation cannot be given at their level. However, this does not mean that the petitioner is remedyless. Admittedly, the Director (Imports), Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, FDA Bhavan, Kotle Road, New Delhi 110 002 is the superior authority over the 1st respondent and is also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a similar direction may be issued in this writ petition also. However, since the Director of Imports, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, New Delhi, has not been impleaded as respondent, this Court suo-motu impleads the said authority as the fifth respondent. 9. In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to file an application before the fifth respondent seeking one time relaxation and the application shall contain all the details and supported by documentary proof and if such application is filed before the fifth respondent along with a copy of this order, the same shall be considered, aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
