Qudratullah Ahmed Syed vs. The State Of Telangana And 8 Others

Held

The Court held 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 grants overriding effect to the provisions of the FSSA over all other food-related laws, would make the FSSA hold the field instead of COTPA. The Court found that the legislative objects of the FSSA and COTPA Act were not in conflict, with the FSSA being for the protection of health and preventing adulteration, and COTPA aimed at prohibiting advertisement and regulating trade. The Court also noted that the Bombay High Court had dealt with similar issues and found no reason to interfere with the impugned notification, considering it a measure to save human lives and a reasonable restriction in larger public interest, especially in light of the health risks associated with gutka/pan masala and other tobacco products. 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 06.01.2021, issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana. This notification prohibited the sale, manufacture, storage, and distribution of gutka, pan masala, and other tobacco products containing any of the 459 additives listed therein. The petitioners argued 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 Act). They sought to prevent interference with their trade and business in these products. The State of Telangana and other respondents were arrayed as parties. Interim applications were also filed seeking suspension of the notification.

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 notification was beyond the scope of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA), and that the FSSA and COTPA Act had conflicting legislative objectives. They argued that the FSSA was primarily for preventing adulteration, while COTPA aimed to regulate tobacco products. They also asserted that the notification violated their fundamental right to carry on trade and business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and that the restriction was not reasonable. They relied on various High Court judgments that had taken a contrary view. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents argued that tobacco products fall within the definition of 'food' under the FSSA, and that Section 89 of the FSSA gives it overriding effect over other food-related laws. They contended that the notification was issued in larger public interest to protect human lives from diseases caused by gutka and other tobacco products, and that the restrictions imposed were reasonable and constitutional. They cited judgments that supported the FSSA's applicability to tobacco products.