Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. It is further stated that to ascertain the country of origin of the seized Areca Nuts, samples were sent to (1) Arecanut Research & Development Foundation, Varanashi Towers, Mission Street, Mangalore, Karnataka and (2) Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata, Extension Centre Raxaul, Bihar. The ARDF, Mangalore submitted a test report, according to which samples of arecanuts pieces and coated with some colouring materials. The 'CFL' reported that "the sample of Betel Nut were tested as per Standard Food Safety norms falling under regulation No. 2.12 & 2.3.57(5) Patna High Court CWJC No.10109 of 2019 dt. 05 -09-2019 of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standard &Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 and found non-conforming to the standards due to presence of Damaged Betel Nuts and Added Colouring matter. Thus, the sample is "unsafe food" under section 3(1) (ZZ) (ix) of FSS Act, 2006." Both the reports are Annexure 'C' and 'D' respectively to the counter affidavit.

22. Further the test report of the 'CFL' reported reads as under:

"The sample of Betel Nut were tested as per Standard Food Safety norms failing under regulation No. 2.12 & 2.3.47 (5) of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standard & Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 and found non- conforming to the standards due to presence of Damaged Betel Nuts and Added Colouring matter. Thus the sample is 'unsafe food' under section 3(I)(ZZ) (ix) of FSS Act, 2006".

26. This Court finds that in the present case the request of the petitioner to release the Betel Nuts have been rejected on a totally different ground. In paragraph 26 of the counter affidavit respondents have come out with the following statements:

"26. That in the view of the statements made in paragraph no. 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 and 68 of the writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that it is pertinent to mention that facts and circumstance of the instant case are not identical to the facts and circumstances for the cases referred by the petitioner in his application. In the instant case respondent has placed reliance upon the test report given by the two test labs, in which it has been reported that "the sample is 'unsafe food' for human consumption; while in any of the cases referred by the petitioner no such report was available at that point of time. In view of the same it would not be appropriate to release the seized goods for human consumption."