M/S. Ratanlal Heeralal Bhati vs. The State Of Telangana And 5 Others

Held

The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition. The Court noted that the issue raised by the petitioner concerning the ban on chewing/chewable tobacco products was already pending before the Supreme Court in Transfer Case (Civil) No. 1 of 2010. The respondents' counsel informed the Court that all States, including Telangana, were represented in that Supreme Court case. The Court was also apprised of the Supreme Court's directions dated September 23, 2016, which mandated statutory authorities to comply with regulations framed under Section 92 read with Section 26 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, pertaining to bans on products like Gutkha and Pan Masala. Consequently, the High Court held that it was appropriate for the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court for appropriate orders if they were aggrieved by the notification. The petition was disposed of on this basis.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Ratanlal Heeralal Bhati, a proprietorship firm, filed a writ petition challenging Notification No. 505/FSS-1/2021 dated January 6, 2021, issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana. This notification banned all chewing/chewable tobacco products. The petitioner 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. The petitioner also argued it violated principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The respondents, including the State of Telangana and the Union of India, were represented. The petitioner sought to set aside the notification and prevent interference with their trade.

Key Issues

1. Whether Notification No. 505/FSS-1/2021 dated January 6, 2021, issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana, banning all chewing/chewable tobacco products, 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 Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notification was contrary to the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, and violated constitutional provisions and natural justice principles. They sought to have the notification set aside and to prevent interference with their business. Respondents' Contention: The learned counsel for the respondents/State submitted that the issue raised in the writ petition was pending consideration before the Supreme Court in Transfer Case (Civil) No. 1 of 2010, in which all States, including Telangana, were represented. They argued that if the petitioner had a grievance, they should approach the Supreme Court, especially in light of the Supreme Court's directions on September 23, 2016, regarding compliance with regulations under Section 92 read with Section 26 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, concerning bans on certain tobacco products.