S.J. Vazifdar, J.

1. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are the Commissioner of Food Safety, Assistant Commissioner (Food) Nanded, Maharashtra, Assistant Commissioner (Food), Aurangabad of the Food and Drug Administration. Respondent No.5 is the Food and Drug Administration. Respondent No.6 is the Union of India.

2. By the impugned action, the respondents have sealed and seized the petitioner's food products and the raw material. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to set aside several notices issued by the respondents. The petitioner also seeks an order directing the respondents to take any action against it with regard to the alleged excess use of colour in any particular batches of its products only after following due process of law. The petitioner further seeks a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from taking any action against it with regard to its products on the ground that they contain lactic acid and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw all the actions and decisions on the basis that its products contain lactic acid. The petitioner did not press the challenge to section 38 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

3. For the purpose of this petition, it is not necessary to refer to the details furnished by the petitioner in respect of their contention that their manufacturing process conforms to very high and stringent standards of quality and hygiene. The petitioner manufactures confectionery products, including sugar boiled confectionery which are sold under the trade name “Kaccha Mango Bite” and “Mazelo”. The said products have been manufactured and sold by the petitioner since the year 2004 and 2008. This is the first time that action has been taken against the petitioner on the ground that its products contain lactic acid. To the knowledge of the respondents, several other manufacturers have also used lactic acid in similar products – sugar boiled confectionery and similar imported products also contain lactic acid. For some inexplicable reason action of this nature was taken only against the petitioner.

The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) was enacted on 23.8.2006 and various provisions thereof came into force on various dates during the years 2007 to 2010. The Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Rules') and the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards & Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Regulations”) were also framed.

4. The petitioner received a notice dated 11th July, 2012 from the respondents stating that the Food Safety Officer had taken a sample of its products, which would be submitted for analysis under the provisions of the said Act, Rules, and Regulations. By another notice dated 18th July, 2012, the Food Safety Officer informed the petitioner that he had drawn samples of the said products from one of its agents. The petitioner was informed that under section 47 (1)(c)(iii) [wrongly typed as 4 (1)(c)(iii)] and the relevant rules, it had an opportunity to get the fourth part of the sample analyzed by the Food Analyst Incharge of N.A.B.L. Accredited / FSSA, notified laboratory by paying requisite fee. The petitioner states that as no analysis report was received, it had no reason to believe that the analysis would be adverse to it and, therefore, did not respond to the said letter.

5. On 3rd October, 2012, the petitioner received a letter dated 1st October, 2012, from respondent No.3 stating that a sample of the said products from the particular batch had been drawn for analysis. The letter stated that the same had been declared as unsafe and of substandard quality by the Director Referral Laboratory, Ghaziabad (U.P.), as the same contained more than the permissible amount of colour as well as acidulants 270 i.e. lactic acid. The petitioner was requested to recall the entire stock of the said products and to confirm the same und