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 purp