Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Varun Beverages Limited vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 May, 2011
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
19-05-2011 Appellate Side
sb-9
. W.P.No.8361(W) of 2011
Varun Beverages Limited
-vs-
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. S. Pal, Sr. advocate
with
Mr. Dheeraj Nair,
Mr. Dipayan Chowdhury,
Ms. Vineeta Meharia and
Mr. S. Chowdhury .... for the petitioner
Mr. Farook M Razzak, Addl. Solicitor-General of India
Mr. Abdul Hamidulla ....for the Union of India
Mr. M.M. Das
Ms. Tanusri Pal Chowdhury ....for the State
The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated May 12,
2011 is questioning the constitutional validity of a notification
dated October 20, 2010 (at p.117) issued by the Central
Government publishing Draft Food Safety and Standards
Regulations, 2010.
Mr Pal appearing for the petitioner has submitted that
in an art.226 petition filed questioning the same notification
the Gauhati High Court has made an interim order dated
January 28, 2011 (at p.159). He submits that the petitioner is
seeking admission and an identical interim order.
Mr Razzak, Additional Solicitor-General of India,
submits that the petition is premature, for only draft rules
have been published inviting objections and objections filed by
2
the petitioner are yet to be considered by the Central
Government that, if necessary, can also give the petitioner
opportunity of hearing.
Referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the
Central Government to the petition in which the Gauhati High
Court has passed the interim order, Mr Pal has submitted in
reply that in the face of the case stated in the affidavit-in-
opposition there is hardly any scope for considering the
petitioner's objection by the Central Government. He has said
that the Supreme Court has laid down the law that
constitutional validity of draft rules can also be challenged in
an appropriate case.
After hearing Mr Pal and Mr Razzak, I am of the view
that it will be appropriate to admit the petition and pass the
same interim order that was passed by the Gauhati High
Court in the petition that is pending before that Court. It is
not disputed that the petition pending before the Gauhati
High Court was filed questioning the constitutional validity of
the same notification.
For these reasons, I admit the petition and pass the
same interim order that was passed by the Gauhati High
Court on January 28, 2011. The interim order shall remain in
force till the disposal of the petition.
The respondents shall file opposition within four weeks
after the ensuing summer vacation as prayed for; reply, if any, shall be filed by two weeks thereafter.
Liberty to mention the petition for out of turn hearing 3 in view of the importance of the issue and public interest involved therein. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.)