SHORT NOTE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
V. M. Kanade and G.S. Kulkarni, JJ.
Vital Nutraceuticals Private Limited —Petitioner
versus
Union of India and Anr. — Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2746 of 2013
Decided on 1.8.2014

IMPORTANT POINT
Food Authority not have power & authority to issue Product Approval Advisories under Sections 16(1), 16(5), 18 & 22 of the Act, without placing Advisories/Regulations before both Houses of Parliament.

Headnote:Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 — Prevention of Food and Adulteration Rules, 1955 — Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 — Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 — Food Safety and Standards (Food Products and Food Additive) Regulations, 2011 — Product approval advisory — Dated 11th May, 2013 — HELD — Has no force of law and not within ambit and scope of power conferred on Food Authority — Food Authority had no power and authority — To issue impugned advisory under Section 16(1) r/w 16(5) r/w 18 & 22 of FSS Act — Without following procedure laid down under Sections 92 & 93 of the Act of placing Advisories/Regulations before both Houses of Parliament.

       Held: So far as point of reference No.(l) above is concerned, one of us viz. V.M. Kanade, J. had taken a view that these Advisories, particularly the Advisory dated 11.5.2013 pertaining to product approval does not have force of law. Similarly, so far as point of reference No.(2) above is concerned, it was held by one of us viz. V.M. Kanade, J. that Respondent No.2 Food Authority did not have power and authority to issue these Advisories under Sections 16(1) read with Section 16(5) read with Sections 18 and 22 of the Act without following the procedure laid down under Sections 92 and 93 of the Act of placing the Advisories/Regulations before both the Houses of Parliament. Brother G.S. Kulkarni, J., however, did not agree with the view which was taken by one of us viz. V.M. Kanade, J. The matter was thereafter referred to the third learned Judge viz. Ranjit More, J. who was pleased to pronounce his view on 30.6.2014. Our brother the third learned Judge Mr. Justice Ranjit More has concurred with the view taken by one of us viz. V.M. Kanade, J. and has observed in para 32 of his Judgment as under:

        “32. In the light of the above discussion, I hold that the impugned advisory i.e. the product approval advisory dated 11th May, 2013 issued by respondent No.2 has no force of law and is not within the ambit and scope of the power conferred on respondent No.2. Food Authority under the provisions of the FSS Act, the Rules and Regulations: framed there under. Further it is held that respondent No.2 food Authority had no power and authority to issue the impugned advisory on Product Approval under Section 16(1), read with Section 16(5), read with Sections 18 and 22 of the FSS Act, without following the procedure laid down under Sections 92 and 93 of the Act of placing the Advisories/Regulations before both the Houses of Parliament.”

        In view of the said observation, our learned brother Mr. Justice Ranjit More has agreed with the view taken by one of us viz. V.M. Kanade, J.

       Therefore, in view of the majority view, the point of reference No.(l) above, is answered in terms of the views taken by one of us viz. V.M. Kanade, J. and the learned third Judge Ranjit More, J. who have held in their orders that the impugned Advisory viz. Product Approval Advisory dated 11.5.2013 issued by Respondent No.2 does not have force of law and is not within the ambit and scope of the power conferred on the Food Authority under the FSS Act and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder.

       Result: Petition allowed