Kantilal vs. State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Kantilal, a retail seller, challenged the action of the respondents (State of Telangana and its Food Safety officers) in alleging misbranding of a product, Kamco Kaju Malai Milk and cashew chocolate bar. The Food Safety Officer lifted four sealed boxes from the petitioner's shop on 10.11.2021. The sample was sent for analysis, and a Food Analyst report dated 06.11.2021 was issued. The petitioner contended that they purchased the goods as per their license and that the respondents' actions were illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also pointed out discrepancies in the dates of sample receipt, analysis commencement, completion, and report signing. The respondents argued that the petitioner, as a seller, is liable for selling misbranded products under Section 27(2)(c) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Food Analysis report. The Court found that the respondents had violated the mandatory requirements contemplated under Section 42(2) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Specifically, the Court noted that the time taken by the Food Analyst from the date of receiving the sample (13.10.2021) to the date of signing the report (06.11.2021) was seventeen days, exceeding the fourteen-day period mandated by the Act. The Court relied on a similar decision by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5994 of 2019, which held that a complaint launched in violation of mandatory procedural requirements is improper and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the Court held that the issuance of the letter dated 11.11.2021 to the petitioner was in violation of Section 42(2) of the Act. The Court directed that the report of Food analysis number 627/2021-22, dated 06.11.2021, in relation to the petitioner be set aside. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Food Analyst report dated 06.11.2021, alleging misbranding of Kamco Kaju Malai Milk and cashew chocolate bar, is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India, read with the statutory provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondents' action of alleging misbranding was illegal and arbitrary. They specifically highlighted a procedural irregularity concerning the timeline for analysis and report generation, contending that the time taken by the Food Analyst to complete and sign the report exceeded the fourteen-day period mandated by Section 42(2) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. They relied on the petitioner's possession of a valid license and the fact that the goods were purchased as per the license. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that the petitioner, as a seller, is liable for engaging in the sale of products declared as misbranded, citing Section 26(2)(ii) and Section 27(2)(c) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.