Fine Chaliya Stores vs. The State Of Telangana

Held

The Court held that the impugned Notification No. 505/FSS-1/2021 was not illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, or ultra vires the COTPA Act, 2003. The Court reasoned that tobacco and other products fall within the definition of 'food' as enumerated in Section 3(i) of the FSSA, 2006. Furthermore, Section 89 of the FSSA grants the provisions of the FSSA an overriding effect on all other food-related laws, including the COTPA Act, 2003, in matters of food safety. The Court found no conflict between the legislative objects of the FSSA and the COTPA Act, as both aim to protect public health. The restrictions imposed by the notification were deemed to be in the larger public interest, a reasonable restriction, and did not offend the right to carry on trade guaranteed under the Constitution. The Court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no reason to interfere with the notification.

Facts

The petitioners, including Sri Kamadhenu Traders and Damodar Jagannath Malpani, filed writ petitions challenging Notification No. 505/FSS-1/2021, dated January 6, 2021, issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana. The petitioners argued that this notification, which prohibited the sale of gutka, pan masala, and other tobacco products, 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 Act). They contended it violated principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The State of Telangana and other respondents were the opposing parties. The petitioners sought to set aside the notification and prevent interference with their trade.

Key Issues

1. Whether Notification No. 505/FSS-1/2021, issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana, is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and ultra vires the COTPA Act, 2003, in violation of 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 beyond the scope of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA), and that the COTPA Act, 2003, was the sole legislation governing tobacco products. They argued that the notification, by prohibiting trade in these products, infringed upon their fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and was not a reasonable restriction. They also raised concerns about procedural impropriety and violation of natural justice. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents argued that tobacco products fall within the definition of 'food' under the FSSA, 2006, and that Section 89 of the FSSA grants it overriding effect over other food-related laws. They asserted that the notification was issued in larger public interest to protect human health, citing the adverse health impacts of gutka and pan masala, and that it constituted a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. They relied on judicial pronouncements upholding similar restrictions.