M/S. Vasudeva Kirana And General Merchants vs. The State Of Telangana And 7 Others

Facts

Multiple petitioners, traders dealing in products covered by a notification issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana, filed writ petitions before the High Court. They challenged the legality and constitutionality of Notification No. 501/FSS-I/2022 dated January 7, 2022. The petitioners argued that this notification was arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional, and ultra vires the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement, Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, and violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. They also alleged harassment by local police authorities despite a stay order from the Supreme Court on a similar notification. The respondents included various state departments and the Union of India.

Held

The High Court noted that a similar notification had been challenged in W.P. No. 5411 of 2021, which was dismissed by the Court. An appeal against that dismissal was pending before the Supreme Court. Crucially, the Court observed that during the pendency of the present writ petitions, the Supreme Court, by an order dated March 31, 2022, had stayed the operation of the impugned notification dated January 7, 2022. Therefore, the High Court held that it would not be proper for it to pass a parallel adjudication as the order of the Supreme Court would be binding on all courts and authorities. The Court directed the respondents to comply with the Supreme Court's stay order. It also stated that if any petitioner felt the stay order was violated, they were at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

Key Issues

1. Whether Notification No. 501/FSS-I/2022 dated January 7, 2022, issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana, is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional, and ultra vires the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement, Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) 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 illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional, and ultra vires the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003, and violated fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21. They also raised a grievance that despite a stay order from the Supreme Court on a similar notification, local police authorities were harassing them and interfering with their businesses. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents regarding the merits of the notification. However, the respondents were represented by various government counsel.