Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6(c). His further submission is that in the Unit at Nadukuppam, no trading activities are conducted by the petitioner and it is carrying on chilling process as per the registration certificate issued by the Government of India dated 14.05.2003. He would also submit that inasmuch as the said Order is passed under the Essential Commodities Act, by virtue of Section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act, the Order being the self-contained Code, it will have overriding effect.
6(d). It is also his submission that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Public Health Act,1939 cannot be enforced in respect of Milk and Dairy Products and even otherwise, the authorities under the said Act, viz., the Health Inspector/Public Health Officer can only impose a fine and there is no power for seizure and closure. Therefore, when on record it is clear that the skimmed milk powder was retained in the Unit only for the purpose of manufacturing cattle feed grade to be exported to Philippines, the question of applicability of Tamil Nadu Public Health Act,1939 or the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 does not arise, and accordingly, the entire procedure is vitiated.

16. On the legal position as stated above, if really the third respondent functioning as Health Officer under the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939, has made seizure and conducted inspection under section 112 of the said Act, the said conduct of the third respondent resulting in the impugned proceedings has no legs to stand in the eye of law.

17. The contention raised by Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the activities of the petitioner in dealing with milk and milk products are covered by the Milk and Milk Products Order, 1992 framed under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 deserves to be considered in detail. The said Milk and Milk products Order, 1992 was issued by the Government of India by notification dated 9.6.1992 as per the powers conferred under the Essential Commodities Act, especially under section 3. A reference to the Statement of objects and reasons which enabled the Government of India to pass Essential Commodities Act, as amended by the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2006, effective from 12.2.2007 makes it clear that the object of the original Act, 1955 as well as the Amendment Act is to provide for the control on production, supply and distribution of essential commodities. The term, 'essential commodity' which was defined in section 2(a) of the Act, 1955 was omitted by the Amendment Act, 54/06. By virtue of the said amendment, a new section 2-A has been introduced in which the 'essential commodities' have been narrated in detail. Further, it enables the Central Government to declare in public interest any commodity in the Schedule as essential commodity or to remove any commodity from the Schedule of essential commodities. Section 2-A of the Essential Commodities Act inserted with effect from 12.2.2007 is as follows:

42. On the other hand, if we look into the object of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 which is an act enacted before the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Central Act), the object is mentioned as follows:

'Adulteration of foodstuffs is so rampant and the evil has become so wide-spread and persistent that nothing short of a somewhat drastic remedy provided for in the Bill can hope to change the situation. Only a concerted and determined onslaught on this most anti-social behaviour can hope to bring relief to the nation' While the object of the Essential Commodities Act,1955 is in respect of regulation and control over the production, supply and distribution of trade and commerce, the object of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is totally different to avoid the menace or erase the menace of adulteration which is an anti-social behaviour.

58. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shivsankar [AIR 1971 SC 815] to the effect that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 cannot be held to be repealed by the Essential Commodities Act,1955 or any other Order passed under the Essential Commodities Act, is actually not an issue in this case, especially after the advent of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (Central Act 34/06) by which the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 has not been superseded even though Milk and Milk Products Order, 1992 framed as per section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act,1955 has been deemed to be a regulation under the Act 34/2006. It is relevant to point out that even under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the food authority as well as the State food authority constituted under the Act and the Commissioner of Food Safety created under section 30 of the Act not only have the powers of licensing the food business, but also the Food Safety Officers appointed under the Act have right of search, seizure, investigation and prosecution and the procedure as per section 41 which is as follows: