Rakesh Kumar Golchha 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 Court found that tobacco and other products fall within the definition of 'food' as enumerated in Section 3(i) of the FSSA. Consequently, Section 89 of the FSSA, which gives overriding effect to its provisions over all other food-related laws, would make the FSSA hold the field. The Court distinguished the legislative objects of the PFA Act and the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003, finding no conflict between them. The Court also noted that the restrictions imposed by the notification were in larger public interest and constituted reasonable restrictions, not offending the right to carry on trade. Citing the Bombay High Court's decision on similar issues, the Court concluded that interference with a notification aimed at saving human lives was not warranted. Therefore, the writ petitions were dismissed.

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 sought 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 and Distribution) Act, 2003. They also sought directions to prevent the respondents from interfering with their trade and business in products covered by the notification. The State of Telangana filed an interlocutory application seeking to vacate the interim order granted in favour of the petitioners.

Key Issues

1. Whether Notification No. 505/FSS-1/2021, issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana, is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, ultra vires the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, and in violation of the 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 arbitrary. They argued that it was ultra vires the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003, and violated their fundamental rights to trade and business. They also raised concerns about procedural impropriety and violation of natural justice principles. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents argued that the notification was issued in larger public interest to protect human lives, citing the adverse health impacts of gutka and other tobacco products. They contended that the restrictions imposed were reasonable and did not offend the right to carry on trade. They also highlighted the overriding effect of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) over other food-related laws.