M/S.Shri Nakoda Agencies vs. The Commissioner Of Food

Held

The Court held that the issue involved in the Writ Petition was covered by a previous order of the same Court passed in W.P.No.21 of 2017 on 09.06.2017. Following this precedent, the Court set aside the impugned notification dated 23.05.2017. The reasoning appears to be that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and its regulations were not applicable to tobacco products, as suggested by the petitioner's argument and the reference to a prior order. The Court allowed the Writ Petition. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned notification. The Court explicitly clarified that this order would not prevent the appropriate authority from taking action under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTP Act). No issue was expressly left undecided, as the matter was resolved based on a prior ruling.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Shri Nakoda Agencies, a proprietorship firm dealing in tobacco products since 2016 with prior licenses and GST registration, filed a writ petition challenging a notification dated 23.05.2017 issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety. The petitioner sought to quash the notification specifically concerning "Chewing Tobacco" and to prevent the respondent from seizing "Hans Chhap Tobacco" dealt by the firm. The respondent contended that the impugned order was rightly passed and no illegality was committed. The notification initiated proceedings against the petitioner for alleged violations of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011, are applicable to the sale of tobacco products, specifically "Chewing Tobacco" and "Hans Chhap Tobacco". Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that as a dealer of tobacco products, the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and its allied regulations have no application to their business. They asserted that they are dealing with tobacco products and not food items as defined under the said Act. Respondent's contention: The respondent contended that the impugned order was passed rightly and there is no illegality in the order. The respondent initiated proceedings under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, implying that they considered the products in question to fall under its purview.