Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Put very shortly, the essential facts are these. Appellant No. 2, Messrs Food Specialities Limited is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling various well- known articles of food including New Maggi 2 minute noodles with sweet sour taste-maker while appellant No. 1 A.K. Roy is the Manager, Quality Controller of the Company. On December 14, 1984 at about 3.30 p.m. the Food Inspector, Faridkot purchased a sample of New Maggi Noodles from the shop of a general merchant for purposes of analysis The Public Analyst by his report dated January 17, 1985 opined that the said article of food contains carmosine and sunset yellow acid coal tar dye instead of caramel as described on the label and was therefore both adulterated as well as misbranded. He further opined that the label of the article of food did not comply with the requirements of rr. 24 and 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 regarding the addition of extraneous colouring matter. On February 1, 1985 the Food Inspector, Faridkot filed a complaint against the general merchant as well as the appellants for having committed an offence punishable under s. 16(1) (a) (ii) of the Act for alleged violation of rr. 24, 28, 29 and 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 by virtue of the delegation of powers by the Food (Health) Authority under notification dated October 10, 1968 purported to have been issued by him under r. 3 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Punjab) Rules, 1958.

In exercise of powers conferred by Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act No. 37 of 1954) read with Punjab Government Notification No.5575 2HBI 1/68/29659 dated 10th October, 1968 the Director, Health Services, Punjab also authorises the above mentioned Food Inspector to institute prosecution against the persons committing offences under the said Act within the limits of local areas."

In this appeal, two main questions arise, namely: (i) Whether r. 3 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Punjab) Rules, 1958 framed under s. 24(2) (e) of the Act being contrary to the legislative mandate contained in s. 20(1) of the Act, was ultra vires the State Government and therefore the impugned notification issued by the State Government dated October 10, 1968 purporting to delegate its powers under s. 20(1) to the Food (Health) Authority viz. to authorise the institution of prosecutions for an offence under the Act, was liable to be struck down. Consequently, whether the impugned notification dated September 7, 1972 issued by the Food (Health) Authority authorising the Food Inspector, Faridkot to institute such prosecutions was illegal, bad in law and void ab initio. (ii) Even if r. 3 of the said Rules could be regarded as a general order issued by the State Government in terms r of s. 20(1) of the Act authorising the Food (Health) Authority to launch prosecutions for an offence under the Act by the framing of a rule under s. 24(2) (e) of the Act, whether the Food (Health) Authority by the impugned notification dated September 7, 1972 could, in his turn, sub-delegate his powers to the Food Inspector, Faridkot. The ultimate question is whether the terms of s. 20(1) of the Act do not postulate further delegation by the person authorised to institute prosecutions for an offence under the Act; he can only give his written consent to such prosecution.

It is common ground that the prosecution in the instant case has not been launched either by or with the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government. It therefore becomes necessary to ascertain whether the Food Inspector, Faridkot was duly authorised to launch a prosecution. The Food Inspector had been conferred powers of the State Government under s. 20(l) of the Act viz. to initiate prosecutions for an offence under the Act, by the Food (Health) Authority i.e. the Director of Health Services. A mere perusal of the impugned notification dated September 7,1972 makes it manifest that it was the Director of Health Services and not the State Government who had authorised the Food Inspector to launch prosecutions for an offence under the Act. It is therefore clear that the Food Inspector is not a person who has been authorised by any general or special order issued by the Central Government or the State Government. There would be no problem if the State Government were to issue a notification under s. 20(l) of the Act conferring authority on the Food Inspector, Faridkot under s. 20(l) to launch prosecutions for an offence under the Act as is the practice in the other States.

In the case of statutory powers the important question is whether on a true construction of the Act, it is intended that a power conferred upon A may be exercised on A's authority by B. The maxim delegatus non potest delegare merely indicates that this is not normally allowable but the Legislature can always provide for sub-delegation of powers. The provision contained in ss. 24(2) (e) enables the State Government to frame a rule for delegation of powers and functions under the Act but it clearly does not envisage any sub-delegation. That apart, a rule framed under s. 24(2) (e) can only provide for delegation of minor administrative functions e.g. appointment of Food Inspectors, Food (Health) Authority etc. In the case of important executive functions like the one contained in s. 20(1) of the Act to authorise launching of prosecutions for an offence under the Act which is in the nature of a safeguard, the Courts may be disposed to construe general powers of delegation restrictively. Keeping in view the language of s. 20(1) and 24(2) (e) of the Act, r. 3 of the Punjab Rules can be treated to be a general order issued by the State Government to authorise the Food (Health) Authority i.e. the Director of Health Services to institute prosecutions for an offence under the Act. Unfortunately, the draftsmen of r. 3 more or less employed the language of s. 20(1) of the Act. If r. 3 were to be literally interpreted, the words "to authorise the launching of prosecutions" may lead to the consequence that the Food (Health) Authority who had been delegated the power of the State Government under s. 20(1) of the Act could, in his turn, sub-delegate his powers to the Food Inspector. Such a consequence is not envisaged by s. 20(1) of the Act. It is well-settled that rules framed pursuant to a power conferred by a statute cannot proceed or go against the specific provisions of the statute. It must therefore follow as a logical consequence that r. 3 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Punjab) Rules, 1958 must be read subject to the provisions contained in s. 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and cannot be construed to authorise sub-delegation of powers by the Food (Health) Authority, Punjab to the Food Inspector, Faridkot. If so construed, as it must, it would mean that the Food (Health) Authority was the person authorised by the State Government to initiate prosecutions. It was also permissible for the Food (Health) Authority being the person authorised under s. 20(1) of the Act to give his written consent for the institution of such prosecutions by the Food Inspector, Faridkot as laid down by this Court in State of Bombay v. Parshottam Kanaiyalal, [1961] 1 SCR 458 and The Corporation of Calcutta v. Md. Omer Ali & Anr., [1976] 4 SCC 527.