Back
2015 Supreme(SC) 1473
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.
Nestle India Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s). 14539 of 2015
Decided On : 16-12-2015
For the Appellant :Mr. H.N. Salve, Sr. Advocate, Mr. L.N. Rao, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Pallavi S. Shroff, Advocate, Ms. Samarika Singh, Advocate, Mr. S.S. Shroff, AOR, Ms. Saanjh N. Purohit, Advocate, Mr. Rajesh Batra, Advocate, Ms. Sonia Kukreja, Advocate, Mr. Saifur R. Faridi, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Chandra, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, AG, Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Abhinav Mukeri, Advocate, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate.
For the Intervenor :Mr. S.K. Sudhi, Advocate, Mr. N.K. Neeraj, Advocate.
The paramount concern for health and the need to meet the parameters of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 influenced the court's decision to direct the samples to be sent to a well-equipped laboratory in Mysore for testing.
Headnote:
Laboratory Testing - Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - The court directed the samples to be sent to a well-equipped laboratory in Mysore for testing, emphasizing the importance of meeting the parameters of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, regarding the testing of 'Maggi Noodles' samples in different laboratories.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the primary concern is health and the testing must meet the parameters of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. It directed the samples to be sent to the Mysore laboratory for testing and ordered a stay on the cases pending before the Commission.
Issues: Dispute over the necessity of sending 'Maggi Noodles' samples to different laboratories for testing.
Ratio Decidendi: The paramount concern for health and the need to meet the parameters of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 influenced the court's decision to direct the samples to be sent to a well-equipped laboratory in Mysore for testing.
Final Decision: The court directed the samples to be sent to the Mysore laboratory for testing and ordered a stay on the cases pending before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
Key Points: - The court directed that samples be sent to a well-equipped laboratory in Mysore for testing under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. (!) - The court stayed the cases pending before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, while the testing is conducted. (!) - There was a consensus that the primary concern is health and that testing must meet the parameters of the FSS Act, 2006. (!) - The Mysore laboratory is described as a referral/covered laboratory for testing. (!) - The appeal involved objections to sending samples to Chennai/Mumbai vs. Mysore; the Court ultimately directed Mysore testing. (!) - The order directs that test reports be produced before the Court. (!) - The samples were initially collected by the Local Commissioner of the NCDRC and continue to be tested under Court supervision. (!) - The hearing noted that the Union of India consented to sending the product to Chennai in place of Mumbai, but the final direction favored Mysore. (!) - The matter was listed for further proceedings on 13.01.2016. (!)
What is the requirement for where testing of Maggi Noodles samples must be conducted under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006?
What is the Court's directive regarding the testing laboratory and stay of proceedings in National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission cases?
What is the role of health considerations in directing sample testing and in selecting a well-equipped laboratory?
ORDER :
Issue notice.
2. As Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Attorney General for India has entered appearance along with Ms. Anil Katiyar, learned counsel on behalf of the Union of India, they waive notice.
3. Heard Mr. Harish Salve and Mr. Nageshwar Rao, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Attorney General for the respondent.
4. The present appeal is directed against the orders dated 9th and 10th December, 2015 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. Grievance, as agoniously pyramided by Mr. Salve, learned senior counsel, is that once the Commission has directed to send the product for testing to the laboratory at Mysore vide order dated 15.10.2015, there was no necessity or warrant to issue a further direction as per orders dated 9th and 10th December, 2015 for sending the samples to Chennai. It is urged by him that the laboratory at Chennai is not fully equipped to carry out all the tests required for the product, namely 'Maggi Noodles'.
5. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Attorney General, resisting the aforesaid submissions, would contend that on consent being given by the appellant, the product has to be sent to Chennai in place of Mumbai.
6. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties, very fairly, agreed that the primary concern is health and the test has to meet the parameters of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. In course of the debate, a consensus was arrived at that the laboratory at Mysore is absolutely well equipped and of being a referral and notified laboratory, the product should be sent there for testing. Be it noted that this statement has been made by Mr. Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.
7. Be that it may. Regard being had to the aforesaid concession, it is directed that the samples earlier collected by the Local Commissioner appointed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, shall be sent to the Mysore laboratory for testing. The test reports shall be produced before this Court.
8. During the pendency of this appeal, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi shall not proceed with the cases pending before it.
9. Let this appeal be listed along with SLP (C) No.33251 of 2015 on 13.01.2016.
