Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD, Cuttack vs. State Of Odisha

Held

The High Court observed that there appeared to be some ambiguity in the understanding and interpretation of the Single Bench's judgment. It was deemed prudent for the litigant to approach the same Judge to have the order clarified or modified. The Court stated that the author of the judgment is best placed to clarify its import and purport, and it would not be proper for the appellate court to substitute its own finding. The appellant's counsel gracefully sought liberty to approach the Single Bench for clarification/modification. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ appeal with liberty granted to the parties to approach the Single Bench for clarification and/or modification of the impugned order. The Single Bench was informed that it would not perceive any fetter in modifying or clarifying the order, even though the High Court had declined to interfere with the impugned order in the present appeal.

Facts

The appellant, Gopal Aromatic Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ appeal challenging observations in a Single Bench order that they believed impacted their statutory rights. The original writ petition challenged a Notification dated January 21, 2026, which prohibited the manufacturing, processing, packaging, storing, transporting, distributing, and sale of all food products containing tobacco or nicotine. This prohibition was extended to all food products, whether chewable or otherwise, that were flavoured or scented or mixed with additives. The appellant argued that chewing tobacco per se, without being used with a food product, did not fall under Regulation 2.3.4 of the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011. The Single Bench had disposed of the writ petition, clarifying that the notification was to be understood as implementing Regulation 2.3.4 and not as an independent prohibition on tobacco products. However, the appellant contended that certain observations, particularly in paragraph 20 of the Single Bench's judgment, created confusion and were being interpreted by the executive as a complete ban on chewing tobacco, even when not used in food products.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Notification dated 21st January, 2026, and the observations in the Single Bench's judgment, particularly in paragraph 20, create an anomalous situation leading to confusion regarding the prohibition of chewing tobacco, and if so, whether clarification or modification is warranted (turning on the interpretation of Regulation 2.3.4 of the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011, and Section 3(1)(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006). Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant: The observations in paragraph 65 of the Single Bench's judgment, while clarifying that the notification implements Regulation 2.3.4 and is not an independent prohibition, are read in conjunction with the findings in paragraph 20, creating confusion. The executive is interpreting paragraph 20 as a complete ban on chewing tobacco, even if not used in food products. They seek clarification or modification of the impugned order to address this anomaly. Respondent/State: Chewing tobacco is prohibited if used as a food product under the notification, and there cannot be an absolute fetter on the prohibition of the sale of chewing tobacco per se.