9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The version of the petitioner/company is that is permitted to trade and store the aforstated products for manufacturing and processing the same, for which, the petitioner is paying necessary taxes till now as per Law. Furthermore, every receipt of the purchased material is duly accounted for in the statutory records and accounts maintained at the petitioner's/company's premises and subject to check and audit by the jurisdictional officers of the second respondent and the Development Commissioner. Furthermore, the sale items are duly documented in the statutory record, register and books of accounts, which are also checked and cross verified in a strict manner by the aforesaid authorities. 5. At this stage, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that on 01.03.2016, the fifth respondent/Designated Officer, Tamil Nadu Food Protection and Drugs, Administration Department, Karur District (as per para No.4 of the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent) and the 6th respondent/Food Safety Officer, Tamil Nadu Food Protection and Drugs, Administration Department, Karur District, along with the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur, Tahsilda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner/company is possessing edible and non-edible oil business licence and the company is trading only in non-edible oils and they are used for production of soaps. Also, that on seeing the stock, the fifth respondent ought to have understood that the stocks are not edibles and if there is any doubt, he has power to take samples, as per Law for food analysis and after the receipt of the food analysis report and he may proceed further. However, the fifth respondent had entered into the petitioner company without following Section 38(6) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. In short, the fifth respondent had never turned up to rectify his unlawful activity, even after the representations made by the petitioner/company. In fact, the respondents 1, 3 and 4 had also received petitioner's representation and slept over the matter, without considering the loss and injury of the petitioner's company. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for passing of an order by this Court in restraining the respondents from in any manner interfering nor disturbing with the running of its business by name Nigetha Trading Company, which are permitted under Law. 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dents that the fifth and sixth respondents took samples and sent them for Food Analysis. In fact, the fifth and sixth respondents put the above 20 oil barrels and 11 plastic cans (chemical) in a room of the premises and locked and sealed it, as per Law. Added further, the petitioner had not disclosed the Bonafide Business viz., from whom the oil was purchased and what type of the oil was purchased and for whom, it was sold. 12.The Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the sixth respondent sent the samples to the Food Analyst Laboratory, Thanjavur and after analysis, the result was received by the sixth respondent on 18.03.2006. The result was that 'the sample does not confirm to Edible Oil parameters with respect to 2.2.1 of FSSR (FPS & FA), 2011'. 13.It is to be noted that Section 38(1) to (6) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 speaks of 'Powers of Food Safety Officer' and the same runs as under: "38.Powers of Food Safety Officer: (1) The Food Safety Officer may- (a) take a sample- (i)of any food, or any substance, which appears to him to be intended for sale, or to have been sold for human consumption; or (ii)of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable to account to the satisfaction of the Food Safety Officer and any books of account or other documents found in his possession or control and which would be useful for, or relevant to, any investigation or proceeding under this Act, may be seized by the Food Safety Officer and a sample of such adulterant for analysis to a Food Analyst. Provided that no such books of account or other documents shall be seized by the Food Safety Officer except with the previous approval of the authority to which he is subordinate.? 14.Besides the above, the Learned Counsel for the respondents invites the attention of the Court to Rule 2.1.3(4) of the Food Safety and Standards Rules under the caption 'Power and Duties', which runs as under: "Without prejudice to the powers conferred on him under Section 38 of the Act, where the Food Safety Officer is of the opinion or he has reason(s) to be recorded in writing that in the given situation it is not possible to comply with the provision of section 38(1)(c) or the proviso to section 38(1) for reasons like non availability of the Food Business Operator, the Food Safety Officers may seize the adulterant or food, which is unsafe or sub- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents from in any manner interfering nor disturbing with the running of his business viz., Nigetha Trading Company, which are permitted under Law. 19.At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the respondents invites the attention of this Court by submitting that the respondents are not interfering with the petitioner's/company's functioning nor its running of its business by name Nigetha Trading Company and in fact, the writ is not to be entertained by this Court, in the eye of Law. 20.On a careful consideration of respective contentions and also this Court taking note of the divergent stand taken by the parties concerned and also this Court, by considering the attendant circumstances of the present case, in a conspectus fashion, comes to an inevitable conclusion that Section 38 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 confers power on the Food Safety Officer to take a sample of any food or any substance which appears to him to be intended for sale or to have been sold for human consumption or of any article of food or substance, which is found by him on or in any such premises etc., In fact, the said Officer has power to seize any article of food which appears to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
