Mahalaxmi Traders vs. The State Of Telangana

Held

The Court held that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA), has an overriding effect on all other food-related laws due to Section 89. It found that tobacco and tobacco products, including gutkha and pan masala, are included within the definition of 'food' under Section 3(1) of the FSSA. Consequently, the FSSA, and regulations made thereunder, would hold sway over COTPA, 2003, in matters concerning food safety. The Court observed that the FSSA is a comprehensive Act dealing with the larger issue of safety and standards of food. It also noted that the restrictions imposed by the impugned notification were in the larger public interest, aimed at saving human lives from the detrimental effects of tobacco products, and constituted reasonable restrictions on the right to carry on trade, thus not offending Article 19 of the Constitution. The Court found no reason to interfere with the notification, deeming it a measure to protect public health. Therefore, the writ petitions were dismissed.

Facts

The petitioners, engaged in the business of selling tobacco products, filed writ petitions challenging Notification No. 501/FSS-1/2020, dated 06/01/2020, issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana. They contended that this notification was illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and ultra vires the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTPA, 2003). The petitioners sought to declare the notification void and prevent the respondents, including police and food safety authorities, from interfering with their lawful business activities. In some cases, petitioners also sought the return of seized materials.

Key Issues

1. Whether Notification No. 501/FSS-1/2020, issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana, is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and ultra vires the COTPA, 2003, in violation of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that the notification was beyond the scope of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA), and that COTPA, 2003, which regulates tobacco products, should prevail. They contended that the FSSA was not intended to regulate tobacco products, and the notification interfered with their fundamental right to carry on trade and business. They also argued that the notification violated principles of natural justice. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents argued that the FSSA, particularly Section 89, grants overriding effect to its provisions over other food-related laws. They contended that tobacco and tobacco products, including gutkha and pan masala, fall within the definition of 'food' under the FSSA. They further argued that the restrictions imposed by the notification were in the larger public interest and constituted reasonable restrictions on trade, especially in light of the health risks associated with tobacco consumption, and that the notification was issued to save human lives.