Back
SUNIL B.SHUKRE, AVINASH G.GHAROTE
Mohammad Yamin Naeem Mohammad – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to inter-state transport prohibition (Para 2 , 5) |
| 2. arguments on jurisdiction of food safety commissioner (Para 6 , 8) |
| 3. overview of relevant constitutional provisions (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. power delegation and authority of state commissioner (Para 11) |
| 5. interpretation of 'distribution' in section 30(2)(a) (Para 13 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. limitations on state's power regarding inter-state commerce (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. state's right to regulate public health (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 8. constitutional validity of the prohibition (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 9. overlap of copta and fssa (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 10. definition of food and its implications (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 11. analysis of conflicting judgments (Para 33 , 34) |
| 12. prosecution under ipc provisions (Para 35 , 36) |
| 13. next steps in judicial consideration (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 14. final ruling on law's application and enforcement (Para 40 , 41) |
JUDGMENT :
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties.
2. The present petition challenges the order dated 15.7.2020 (Annexure-8) issued by the respondent no. 2, the Food Safety Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, Maharasht
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
