Madras High Court
M/S.Aachi Masala Foods Pvt. Limited vs The Food Safety And Standards Authority ... on 21 November, 2024
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P (MD).No.18603 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P (MD).No.18603 of 2018
and
W.M.P(MD)No.16469 of 2018
M/s.Aachi Masala Foods Pvt. Limited,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory,
V.Sukumar,
Registered Office at No.1926, 34th Street,
'I' Block, Aishwarya Colony,
Anna Nagar West,
Chennai-600 040. ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India,
Represented by its Chief Executive Officer,
SBA Bhavan,
Kotla Road,
New Delhi-110 002.
2.The Commissioner of Food Safety,
Tamilnadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department,
5th Floor, D.M.S.Building,
No.259, Anna Salai,
Teynampet,
Chennai-600 006.
3.The Adjudicating Authority &
Additional District Magistrate/
District Revenue Officer,
Tiruchirapalli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
W.P (MD).No.18603 of 2018
4.The Designated Officer (Tiruchirapalli),
Tamilnadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department,
Tiruchirapalli.
5.The Food Safety Officer,
Uppiliapuram Circle,
Tiruchirapalli District. ...Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the third respondent in Case
No.DRO/DO/12/2018, dated 27.04.2018 of the third respondent and quash the
same, so far as petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murali
For R1 & R2 : Mr.G.Raja Raman
For R3 & R4 : Mr.D.Gandhi Raj
Special Government Pleader
For R5 : Mrs.M.Aasha
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the third respondent, dated 27.04.2018 thereby, found guilty of the petitioner and imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as against the petitioner.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/7 W.P (MD).No.18603 of 2018
3. The petitioner is the third accused in the complaint lodged by the first respondent for the contravention of the provision under Section 3(1)(zf)(c)
(i) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Regulation 2.2.2(3)(v) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labeling) Regulation, 2011. The first accused is the retailer and the second accused is the distributor. The petitioner is being the manufacturer of the Beverage known as "TANJUS" Mango drink has been distributed by the second accused sold by the first accused. On inspection by the first respondent, the samples of TANJUS Mango drink were taken and sent for Food Analysis. The Food Analysis report says that the label mentioned the Beverage as rich in natural vitamin A & C. But failed to mention the amount of vitamin A and C in the nutritional information, thereby, observing that it is a nutritional claim regarding the vitamin A & C. Therefore, it is a contravention of the Regulation 2.2.2(3) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labeling) Regulation, 2011, and the same amounts to misbrand under Section 3(1)(zf)(c)(i). Accordingly, the amount of Vitamin A and C, for which, the nutrition claim is made, shall be given in Nutritional Information. Thus, contravening the said regulation, except this, other tests results are not contravention of any of the regulations. On the strength of the said report, the first respondent lodged a complaint before the third respondent, who is being an adjudicating authority. The adjudicating https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/7 W.P (MD).No.18603 of 2018 authority passed an order stating that the accused persons admitted their contravention and imposed a sum of Rs.10,000/- each as against the accused Nos.1 & 2 and a sum of Rs.25,000/- as against the third accused, who is the petitioner herein. It is denied by the petitioner that they never admitted before the adjudicating authority with regard to the contravention as alleged by the Food Analysis Report.
4. That apart, on perusal of the label of the Tanjus Mango drink revealed that it never sought about the quantum of Vitamin A and C. They mentioned as rich in natural vitamin A & C and they never quantify the Vitamin A & C in the label. They also mentioned about the ingredients of Tanjus Mango drink. Admittedly, there is no other contravention, except the contravention under the Regulation 2.2.2(3)of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labeling) Regulation 2011. Without mentioning the quantum of Vitamin A and C now declared the product as misbranded. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner never label the Tanjus Mango drink by quantify the Vitamin A and C in anywhere. Therefore, the contravention as alleged by the first respondent cannot be sustainable since there is absolutely no mentioning of the nutritional claim by the petitioner. Therefore, there is no contravention of the regulations 2.2.2(3)(v) of the Food Safety and Standards https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/7 W.P (MD).No.18603 of 2018 (Packaging and Labeling) Regulation, 2011. Admittedly, there is no supplement added by the petitioner and it is a natural drink made up from Mango pulp. As per the Regulation 2.2.2(3)(v) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labeling) Regulation, 2011 provides for nutritional information that is required to be furnished in the label namely the nutritional value amounts to proteins, carbohydrates, sugar and fat and the amount of any other nutrition for which, a Nutrition Health Scheme is made and wherever the numerical information on vitamin and minerals is declared the same shall be expressed in MT units. This requirements would be possible only if the petitioner has enriched the same with such vitamins or minerals as provided under Regulation. Admittedly, the petitioner does not claim enriched beverage with nutrients or vitamins that mango is rich in Vitamin A and C which is not enriched by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner did not furnish any nutritional amount of minerals and vitamins present in the drink.
5. In view of the above, without considering the same, the adjudicating authority imposed a fine as if the accused admitted their guilt and hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/7 W.P (MD).No.18603 of 2018
6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.04.2018 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No 21.11.2024
Speaking/Non Speaking order
am
To
1.The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, Represented by its Chief Executive Officer, SBA Bhavan, Kotla Road, New Delhi-110 002.
2.The Commissioner of Food Safety, Tamilnadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department, 5th Floor, D.M.S.Building, No.259, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600 006.
3.The Adjudicating Authority & Additional District Magistrate/ District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirapalli.
4.The Designated Officer (Tiruchirapalli), Tamilnadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department, Tiruchirapalli.
5.The Food Safety Officer, Uppiliapuram Circle, Tiruchirapalli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/7 W.P (MD).No.18603 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
am W.P (MD).No.18603 of 2018 21.11.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/7