2002 Supreme(Bom) 1028

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Lodha R.M. Bhosale D.B., JJ.
Dhariwal Industries Ltd. another .... Petitioners.
Versus
Union of India others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition Nos. 2001, 2002, 2024, 1982, 2251 of 2002, decided on 18/19-9-2002.
Advocates appeared :
S.G. Aney, Sr.C. with Vineet Naik, Satish Shah Vatsal Mehta i/b. Bhaishanker Kanga Girdharlal, in W.P. No. 2001/2002, for petitioners.
Ms. Jyoti Pawar with D.A. Dubey, in W.P. Nos. 2001, 2002, 2024/2002, for respondent No. 1 in W.P. Nos. 1982 2251/2002, for respondent 3.
G.E. Vahanvati, A.G. with Ms. A. Kalyanram Ms. R.M. Hakeem, in W.P. No. 2001, 2002, 2024, for respondent Nos. 2 3.
G.E. Vahanvati, A.G. with R.M. Sawant G.P., in W.P. Nos. 1982 2251/2002, for respondent Nos. 1 2.
F. Devitre, Sr.C. with Vatsal Mehta i/b. Bhaishanker Kanga Girdharlal, in W.P. No. 2002/2002, for petitioners.
Kapil Sibal, Sr.C. with V. Lakshminarayan, C.S. Balsara, P.K. Shroff i/b., Parimal Shroff Co., in W.P. No. 2024/2002, for petitioner.
Hari with Vineet Naik, i/b. Chandana Salgaonkar Radia, in W.P. No. 1982/2002, for petitioner.
Vinod Bobde, Sr.C. with Vineet Naik, i/b. Chandana Salgaonkar Radia, in W.P. No. 2251/2002, for petitioner.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 20 - Prohibition on sale, manufacture and stocking of "pan masala", gutkha - Notification issued by Health department of Maharashtra Government - challenged - On grounds of jurisdiction - Manufacturing done outside state - Prohibition order cannot operate beyond territorial jurisdiction of state - Held - In matter of trading, commercial activity such as sale, stocking is a final object and if sale is prohibited prohibition on manufacturers will also be affected accordingly. - Therefore when the Parliament in clause 7(iv) empowered the Food (Health) Authority to prohibit any article of food the sale of which is for the time being in the interest of public health, obviously, the Parliament intended such power of prohibition to include prohibition on manufacture for sale or store or distribute. In other words, once the sale of an article of food is prohibited by Food (Health) Authority under Section 7(iv), it is open to such authority to ban manufacture of such article of food as well. Court is benefited in this connection, by the observations made by the Apex Court in the Khadya Peya Vikarate Malak Sangh v. The Chief Officer, Sangli Municipal Council and another, 1977 (1) SCC 455. The Supreme Court held that the word manufacturer as defined in clause (d) of Rule 2 of Maharashtra Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules has been used in widest possible sense. It was held that the preparation of manufacture of those articles was incidental or ancillary to the retail sale, the dominant purpose of trading activity being sale of food articles by retail. A fortiori, once ban is imposed in the public interest by Food (Health) Authority for sale of any article of food for the time being under clause (iv) of Section 7 the sale being a predominant trading activity, the authority is competent to ban manufacture, storage and distribution of such article of food too. In the beginning of Section 7 the expression "manufacture for sale, or store, or distribute" having already been used, it was unnecessary to use in clause (iv) the expression, manufacture or store or distribute . Court need not overemphasise that the central concept of the statute like the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is to prevent the pubic health from serious hazards by adulteration of foodstuffs.

       Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Rule 42(zzz)(3) - Restrictions imposed on manufacturing of "Gutkha" and "Pan Masala" - Alleged violation of right to life, business and profession - Violating Article 19(1)(g), (6) and 21 - Contention that if ingredients of Masala are taken separately these do not cause any harm - But so many studies show that "Pan Masala" does cause so many health problems including many severe diseases - Hence, challenge to imposition of ban on manufacture of Pan Masala and Gutkha cannot be said to be violative of Article 19(2)(g), (6) and 21. - It is true that there is no conclusive finding that Pan Masala without tobacco is carcinogenic by itself but the available studies and material leave no manner for doubt that intake of Pan Masala particularly frequent intake over the days can lead to significant cardiovascular risks. Besides that various reports by the public analysts placed on record in respect of the Pan Masala without tobacco do show that almost every Pan Masala available in market, contain magnesium carbonate to the extent ranging from 2% to 5%. On the basis of the excessive intake of magnesium carbonate, the user adversely suffers from hypermagnesaemia which may lead to hypotension and cardiac arrest. The available material and studies conducted so far, thus, would lead to reasonable belief that Pan Masala may affect adversely and seriously the health of the user. This view finds support from the fact that even Rule 42 (zzz) (3) prescribes that every packet of Pan Masala and advertisement thereto shall carry the warning, "Chewing of Pan Masala may be injurious to health". An article of food which is injurious to health or may impair the health of the constant user or lead to affect public health or which may involve health hazard, trade or business therein, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. A restriction which is commensurate with the need of time in helping good of public health or prevent danger to public health cannot be said to be unreasonable even though it goes to the extent of extinguishment of the individual s property or may cause hardship in individual cases. In the case of dangerous, noxious, vicious or pernicious trade such as Pan Masala and Gutkha the prohibition thereof is for social welfare and in the interest of public health. Article 47 of the Constitution of India ordains the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health. Prohibition of Pan Masala and Gutkha which erodes public health would definitely result in improvement of public health. If health is wealth then good public health is national wealth and to preserve and protect national wealth in the nature of good public health is the obligation and responsibility of State. The restriction that may be imposed on articles of food in the interest of public health on the trade and business of Gutkha and Pan Masala, thus, cannot be said to be unreasonable or violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The challenge to the vires of Section 7(iv) with the touchstone of Article 19(1)(g) is devoid of merit and is overruled.

       Constitution of India - Article 14 - Vice of Article 14 - Power under Section 7(iv) of P.F.A. Act - Alleged to be suffering from vice of Article 14 - It was also alleged as an unguided and unbridled power - Held - Guiding factor is purely health - Section 7(iv) of PFA Act itself has guidelines in limit - These can be enforced by Food (Health) authorities, statutory authority, State as well Central Government - These cannot be said to be suffering from vice of Article 14. - Validity of Section 7(iv) was also sought to be challenged being violative of Article 14 having no guidelines and thereby giving uncanalised and unbridled power of Food (Health) authority. That is not fair reading of Section 7(iv). It would be seen from plain reading of Section 7(iv) that guidelines are provided in the section itself and the purpose, of course, stated therein. The Food (Health) authority can only prohibit any article of food for sale, in the interest of public health for the time being. Thus, the guideline and the purpose are provided in the section itself as the power is exercisable in the interest of public health and for the time being. The interest of public heath is specific guidance to the State Food (Health) authority in the exercise of the power banning article of food for sale. The Parliament itself has provided the guidelines in Section 7(iv) for the exercise of the power by the Food (Health) authority and, therefore, Court does not find any merit in the contention that Section 7(iv) provides no guidelines and rather gives un-restricted, unbridled and uncanalised power to the Food (Health) authority. Besides that be it noted that the power has been given by the Parliament to a very senior officer and statutory authority i.e. Food (Health) authority. Under Section 2(vi) Food (Health) authority means the Director of Medical and Health Services or the Chief Officer in-charge of Health Administration in a State, by whatever designation he is known, and includes any officer empowered by the Central Government or the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Food (Health) authority under the Act of 1954. Section 7(iv) therefore, cannot be said to suffer from vice of Article 14.

       Constitution of India - - Articles 19(1)(g), (6) and 21 - Restrictions on manufacture of pan-masala , gutkha - Opposed on grounds of violation of right to business, life and profession - Thus violating Articles 19(1)(g), (6) and 21 of Constitution - Ingredients of masala taken separately do not cause any harm to health - Held - Right to do business is not an absolute right - Studies available show that regular use of non-tobocco masala also causes so many diseases - Here challenge to imposition of ban does not violate Articles 19 (1)(g), (6) and 21. - It is true that there is no conclusive finding that pan masala without tobacco is carcinogenic by itself but the available studies and material leave no manner of doubt that intake of pan masala, particularly frequent intake, over the days can lead to significant cardiovascular risks. Besides that various reports by the public analysts placed on record in respect of the pan masala without tobacco do show that almost every pan masala available in market, contain magnesium carbonate to the extent ranging from 2% to 5%. On the basis of the excessive intake of magnesium carbonate, the user adversely suffers from hypermagnesaemia which may lead to hypotension and cardiac arrest. The available material and studies conducted so far, thus, would lead to reasonable belief that pan masala may affect adversely and seriously the health of the user. This view finds support from the fact that even Rule 42(zzz)(3) prescribes that every packet of pan masala and advertisement thereto shall carry the warning, "chewing of pan masala may be injurious to health".

       An article of food which is injurious to health or may impair the health of the constant user or lead to affect public health or which may involve health hazard, trade or business therein, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. A restriction which is commensurate with the need of time in helping good of public health or prevent danger to public health cannot be said to be unreasonable even though it goes to the extent of extinguishment of the individual s property or may cause hardship in individual cases. In the case of dangerous, noxious, vicious or pernicious trade such as pan masala and gutka the prohibition thereof is for social welfare and in the interest of public health. Article 47 of the Constitution of India ordains the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health. Prohibition of pan masala and gutka which erodes public health would definitely result in improvement of public health. If health is wealth then good public health is national wealth and to preserve and protect national wealth in the nature of good public health is the obligation and responsibility of State. The restriction that may be imposed on articles of food in the interest of public health on the trade and business of gutka and pan masala, thus, cannot be said to be unreasonable or violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The challenge to the vires of Section 7(iv) with the touchstone of Article 19(1)(g) is devoid of merit and is overruled

       Constitution of India - Schedule VII, List III, Entry 18, and List II, Entry 6 - Legislative competence to issue prohibitory orders - Order issue by Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration for State of Maharashtra - Under Section 7 (iv) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Matter within the purview of health that is covered in List II, Entry 6 of VII Schedule - State only has jurisdiction to pass any order - Parliament has no role to play - Held - Gutkha comes in periphery of health as well as food adulteration - Accordingly Parliament does have jurisdiction to pass such orders. - The first aspect is whether Section 7(iv) is ultra vires for want of legislative competence. The submission on behalf of the petitioners is this regard is that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been legislated by the Parliament under Entry 18, List III of VII Schedule and, therefore, it is an enactment of Prevention of Food

        Adulteration. Such Act cannot legislate empowering ban on any item generally on the ground of public health. That is possible only by legislation by law enacted by State Legislature under Entry 6 of List II, VII Schedule. List III of VII Schedule is concurrent list and Entry 18 reads, "Adulteration of foods stuffs and other goods". In contrast to this entry, attention is invited to Entry 6 of List II-State List which provides for public health and sanitation; hospitals and dispensaries. Mr. Bobde, Senior Counsel appearing for one of the petitioners also invited attention to Entry 33 of List III, concurrent list to urge that Section 23 of the Act of 1954 is enacted in exercise of the powers under Entry 23. That being the object and the purpose of the Act of 1954, the challenge to the enactment of Section 7 (iv) beyond legislative competence of the Parliament on the ground that the subject matter squarely and exclusively falls within the competence of the State Legislature under Entry 6 of List II of VII Schedule can hardly be accepted. There is substances in the submission of the Advocate General that the very essence and foundation of adulteration of foods stuffs is public health and that public health by itself may be general concept but adulterated foodstuffs have a direct and inextricable bearing on public health. Therefore, there is no hesitation in holding that Section 7 (iv) of the Act of 1954 cannot be said to suffer from the vice of legislative competence. It has already been noted that it is always open to legislature to deal with the incidental and ancillary matters to make legislation effective and while enacting the law concerning the prevention of food adulteration if the Parliament has provided for a power to the Food (Health) Authority to prohibit the sale of article of foods for the time being in the interest of public health, at best such law concerning public health is incidentant entrenchment which cannot be labelled exceeding the power of the Parliament. The aforesaid discussion squarely answers question (iii) as well. Section 7 (iv) itself cannot be said to be inoperative unless there is State law referable to Entry 6 of List II of VII Schedule. The power given of Food (Health) Authority under Section 7(iv) by the Parliament is absolute, in a sense plenary and independent of the rule making power of the Central Government under Section 23 of the Act of 1954. Though Mr. Bobde, learned Senior Counsel sought to urge that when Parliament intended to confer power under the Act of 1954 it used appropriate language and provided the mode and manner of its exercise and in this connection he referred to Section 23 (1-A) (f) and Section 10(1)(c). Court is unable to accept the submission of the Senior Counsel that these provisions are instances of conferral power by Parliament and Section 7(iv) is not. Court does not find any justification in holding that Section 7(iv) does not confer power on Food (Health) Authority by itself and that it is dependent on valid law other than Section 7(iv

       Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Section 7(iv) - Prohibition on sale, manufacture, storage of Gutkha and Pan Masala - Notification issued by the Health Department of Maharashtra government - Challenged - On grounds of jurisdiction of state - As manufacturing is outside state prohibition order cannot control items not in territorial jurisdiction of state - Held - In matter of trading commercial activity such as sale, stocking is a final object and if sale is prohibited, prohibition on manufactures will automatically affected. - When the Parliament in clause 7(iv) empowered the Food (Health) Authority to prohibit any article of food the sale of which is for the time being in the interest of public health, obviously, the Parliament intended such power of prohibition to include prohibition on manufacture, for sale or store or distribute. In other words, once the sale of an article of food is prohibited by Food (Health) Authority under Section 7(iv), it is open to such authority to ban manufacture of such article of food as well. Court is benefited, in this connection, by the observations made by the Apex Court in the Khadya Peya Vikarate Malak Sangh v. The Chief Officer, Sangli Municipal Council and another, 1997 (1) SCC 455. The Supreme Court held that the word manufacturer as defined in clause (d) of Rule 2 of Maharashtra Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules has been used in widest possible sense. It was held that the preparation of manufacture of those articles was incidental or ancillary to the retail sale, the dominant purpose of trading activity being sale of food articles by retail. A fortiori, once ban is imposed in the public interest by Food (Health) Authority for sale of any article of food for the time being under clause (iv) of Section 7 the sale being a predominant trading activity, the authority is competent to ban manufacture, storage and distribution of such article of food too. In the beginning of Section 7 the expression "manufacture for sale, or store, or distribute" having already been used, it was unnecessary to use in clause (iv) the expression, manufacture or store or distribute . Court need not over emphasise that the central concept of the statute like the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is to prevent the public health from serious hazards by adulteration of foodstuffs.

       Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Section 7(iv) - Restriction on manufacture of "Gutkha", "Pan Masala" for five years - By state Health Officers - Opposed on ground that it was a prohibition on business, life and profession - So violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of Constitution - Ingredients taken separately do not cause any harm to health - Held - Right to business is not an absolute right - It is true that "Pan Masala" without tobacco is not injurious - yet studies available speak that continuous use of it can cause so many diseases - Hence challenge of violation of right of trade and business under Article 19(1)(g) and 21 is devoid of merits. - It is true that there is no conclusive finding that Pan Masala without tobacco is carcinogenic by itself but the available studies and material leave no manner of doubt that intake of Pan Masala particularly frequent intake over the days can lead to significant cardiovascular risks. Besides that various reports by public analysts placed on record in respect of Pan Masala without tobacco do show that almost every Pan Masala available in market, contain magnesium carbonate to the extent ranging from 2% to 5%. On the basis of the excessive intake of magnesium carbonate, the user adversely suffers from hypermagnesaemia which may lead to hypotension and cardiac arrest. The available material and studies conducted so far, thus, would lead to reasonable belief that Pan Masala may affect adversely and seriously the health of the user. This view finds support from the fact that even Rule 42 (zzz)(3) prescribes that every packet of Pan Masala and advertisement thereto shall carry the warning, "chewing of Pan Masala may be injurious to health". An article of food which is injurious to health or may impair the health of the constant user or lead to affect public health or which may involve health hazard, trade or business therein, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. A restriction which is commensurate with the need of time in helping good of public health or prevent danger to public health cannot be said to be unreasonable even though it goes to the extent of extinguishment of the individual s property or may cause hardship in individual cases. In the case of dangerous, noxious, vicious or pernicious trade such as Pan Masala and Gutaka the prohibition thereof is for social welfare and in the interest of public health. Article 47 of the Constitution of India ordains the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health. Prohibition of Pan Masala and Gutka which rides public health would definitely result in improvement of public health. If health is wealth then good public health is national wealth and to preserve and protect national wealth in the nature of good public health is the obligation and responsibility of State. The restriction that may be imposed on articles of food in the interest of public health on the trade and business of Gutaka and Pan Masala, thus, cannot be said to be unreasonable or violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The challenge to the vires of Section 7(iv) with the touchstone of Article 19(1)(g) is devoid of merit and is overruled.

       Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Section 7(iv) - States jurisdiction to issue prohibition on manufacture of Pan Masala and "Gutkha" - Contention that the power under Section 7(iv) of PFA Act, can be exercised by Central Government only - Held - The powers of state as well as of Centre as to making of rules may overlap on some issues, but by itself will not make power of Health authority under Section 7(iv), conditional on exercise of power by state or Central Government. - Court has already noted Section 23 above. Section 23 empowers the Central Government to make rules, after consultation with the Committee constituted under Section 3 of the Act and previous publication by notification in the Official Gazette for carrying out the provisions of the Act. Proviso appended to sub-section (1) of Section 23 provides that consultation with the Committee may be dispensed with if the Central Governments is of the opinion that circumstances have arisen which render it necessary to make rules without such consultation, but, in such a case, the Committee shall be consulted within six months of the making of the rules and the Central Government shall take into consideration any suggestions which the Committee may make in relation to the amendment of the said rules. Sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 provide for matters, inter alia for which rules may be framed by the Central Government. Clause (b) thereof provides for defining the standards of quality for, and fixing the limits of variability permissible in respect of any article of food; clause (c) provides for laying down special provision for imposing rigorous control over the production, distribution and sale of any article or class of articles of food which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, may specify in this behalf; clause (d) provides for restricting the packing and labelling of any article of food and the design of any such package or label with a view of preventing the public or the purchaser being deceived or misled as to the character, quality or quantity of the article or preventing adulteration and clause (f) provides for making rules concerning prohibiting the sale or defining the conditions of sale of any substance which may be injurious to health when used as food or restricting in any manner its use as an ingredient in the manufacture of any article of food or regulating by the issue of licences the manufacture or sale of any article of food. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 provides that every rule made by the Central Government under the Act shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made before each House of Parliament while it is in session for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions aforesaid and if both the Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both House agree that the rule should not be made, in that event the rule shall have effect only in such modified form or shall be of no effect as the case may be. Section 23(1-A)(f) which empowers the Central Government to make rules concerning (i) sale of any substance which may be injurious to health when used as food; (ii) restrict in any manner the use of the said substance as an ingredient in the manufacture of any article of food and (iii) regulate by issue of licence for manufacture or sale of any article of food is quite separate, distinct and does not affect or impinge upon the power of the Food (Health) Authority under Section 7(iv) to prohibit an article of food for sale in the interest of public health for the time being-such power of Food (Health) Authority being absolute to that extent. Besides the rule making power given to the Central Government under Section 23, the Parliament in the very nature, object and purpose for which the Act of 1954 was enacted empowered the Food (Health) Authority to prohibit any article of food for sale for the time being in the interest of public health. The power given to Food (Health) Authority under Section 7(iv) by the Parliament in essence is absolute to the extent given and not subject to Section 23(1-A)(f). In a given fact situation sometimes the power conferred on the Food (Health) Authority under Section 7(iv) may overlap the power of Central Government under Section 23(1)(f) but that does not make the power of the Food (Health) Authority under Section 7(iv) conditional upon the exercise of power by Central Government or by State law.

       Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 23 and 7(iv) - Legislative competence of prohibitory order - Issued by Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration for state of Maharashtra - Ground of challenge - Matter of health is under List II, Entry 6 of VII Schedule - State has only the competency to pass such order - Parliament has no role to play - Held - In some cases the subject is overlapping - As regards Gutkha it is covered under health as well as prevention of food adulteration - It cannot be held that Parliament has no jurisdiction to pass such order. - The first aspect is whether Section 7(iv) is ultra vires for want of legislative competence. The submission on behalf of the petitioners in this regard is that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been legislated by Parliament under Entry 18, List III of VII Schedule and, therefore, it is an enactment for the Prevention of Food Adulteration. Such Act cannot legislate empowering ban on any item generally on the ground of public health. That is possible only by legislation by law enacted by State Legislature under Entry 6 of List II, VII Schedule. List III of VII Schedule is concurrent list and Entry 18 reads, "Adulteration of foodstuffs and other goods". In contrast to this entry, Court s attention is invited to Entry 6 of List II-State List which provides for public health and sanitation; hospitals and dispensaries. Mr. Bobde, senior counsel appearing for one of the petitioners also invited attention to Entry 33 of List III, concurrent list to urge that Section 23 of the Act of 1954 is enacted in exercise of the powers under Entry 23. That being the object and the purpose of the Act of 1954, the challenge to the enactment of Section 7(iv) beyond legislative competence of the Parliament on the ground that the subject-matter squarely and exclusively falls within the competence of the State Legislature under Entry 6 of List II of VII Schedule can hardly be accepted. There is substance in the submission of the Advocate General that the very essence and foundation of adulteration of food stuffs is public health and that public health by itself may be a general concept but adulterated foodstuffs have a direct and inextricable bearing on public health.

       Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 23 and 7(iv) - Legislative competence of prohibitory order - Issued by Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration for state of Maharashtra - Ground of challenge - Matter of health is under List II, Entry 6 of VII Schedule - State has only the competency to pass such order - Parliament has no role to play - Held - In some cases the subject is overlapping - As regards Gutkha it is covered under health as well as prevention of food adulteration - It cannot be held that Parliament has no jurisdiction to pass such order. - The first aspect is whether Section 7(iv) is ultra vires for want of legislative competence. The submission on behalf of the petitioners in this regard is that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been legislated by Parliament under Entry 18, List III of VII Schedule and, therefore, it is an enactment for the Prevention of Food Adulteration. Such Act cannot legislate empowering ban on any item generally on the ground of public health. That is possible only by legislation by law enacted by State Legislature under Entry 6 of List II, VII Schedule. List III of VII Schedule is concurrent list and Entry 18 reads, "Adulteration of foodstuffs and other goods". In contrast to this entry, Court s attention is invited to Entry 6 of List II-State List which provides for public health and sanitation; hospitals and dispensaries. Mr. Bobde, senior counsel appearing for one of the petitioners also invited attention to Entry 33 of List III, concurrent list to urge that Section 23 of the Act of 1954 is enacted in exercise of the powers under Entry 23. That being the object and the purpose of the Act of 1954, the challenge to the enactment of Section 7(iv) beyond legislative competence of the Parliament on the ground that the subject-matter squarely and exclusively falls within the competence of the State Legislature under Entry 6 of List II of VII Schedule can hardly be accepted. There is substance in the submission of the Advocate General that the very essence and foundation of adulteration of food stuffs is public health and that public health by itself may be a general concept but adulterated foodstuffs have a direct and inextricable bearing on public health.

       Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Rule 32 - Legislative competence to issue prohibitory order - Order issued by Food and Drug Commissioner - Challenged on ground that matter of health is in List II, Entry 6 of VII Schedule - State only has jurisdiction and not Parliament to pass an order in this field - Held - As matter relates to Prevention of Food Adulteration also the Parliament gets jurisdiction to pass necessary orders. - There is no hesitation in holding that Section 7(iv) of the Act of 1954 cannot be said to suffer from the vice of legislative competence. It has already been noted that it is always open to legislature to deal with the incidental and ancillary matters to make legislation effective and while enacting the law concerning the prevention of food adulteration if the Parliament has provided for a power to the Food (Health) Authority to prohibit the sale of article of foods for the time being in the interest of public health, at best such law concerning public health is incidental entrenchment which cannot be labelled exceeding the power of the Parliament. The aforesaid discussion squarely answers question (iii) as well. Section 7(iv) by itself cannot be said to be inoperative unless there is State law referable to Entry 6 of List II of VII Schedule. The power given to Food (Health) Authority under Section 7(iv) by the Parliament is absolute, in a sense plenary and independent of the rule making power of the Central Government under Section 23 of the Act of 1954. Though Mr. Bobde, senior counsel sought to urge that when Parliament intended to confer power under the Act of 1954 it used appropriate language and provided the mode and manner of its exercise and in this connection he referred to Section 23(1-A)(f) and Section 10(1)(c), Court is unable to accept the submission of the senior counsel that these provisions are instances of conferral power by Parliament and Section 7(iv) is not. Court does not find any justification in holding that Section 7(iv) does not confer power on Food (Health) Authority by itself and that it is dependent on valid law other than Section 7(iv).