Sri Ram Traders vs. The State Of Telangana

Held

The Court held that the controversy in the present case had already been adjudicated in W.P.No.19928 of 2021 and batch, decided on 30.11.2021. In that prior judgment, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had dealt with similar issues. The Telangana High Court, in its considered opinion, found no reason to interfere with the impugned notification, stating that it was bound to save human lives. The Court reasoned that the restrictions imposed were in larger public interest and constituted reasonable restrictions, not offending the right to carry on trade guaranteed under the Constitution. The Court also noted that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA), with its Section 89 providing overriding effect, held sway over other food-related laws, including COPTA, when tobacco and tobacco products were considered food. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed.

Facts

The petitioners, proprietary firms engaged in the trade of various products, filed a writ petition challenging Notification No. 505/FSS-1/2021 dated 06.01.2021 issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana. They sought a writ of mandamus to declare this notification illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and ultra vires the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply of Distribution) Act, 2003 (COPTA). The petitioners also sought to restrain the respondents from interfering with their trade and business in products covered by the notification. The High Court noted that the controversy had already been adjudicated in a previous batch of writ petitions (W.P.No.19928 of 2021 and batch) decided on 30.11.2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether Notification No. 505/FSS-1/2021 dated 06.01.2021, issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana, is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and ultra vires COPTA, violating principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the impugned notification was illegal and unconstitutional, asserting that their trade and business were being interfered with. They sought to set aside the notification and prevent any interference. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents, including the State of Telangana and the Commissioner of Food Safety, argued that the notification was issued in larger public interest to save human lives, considering the high death rate from gutka/pan masala and other tobacco products, which exceeded deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic. They contended that the restrictions imposed were reasonable and did not offend the right to carry on trade.