Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. These two intra-court appeals though against different judgments (of the same learned Single Judge), but both concerning interpretation of the provisions of The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) and Rules and Regulations made thereunder and filed at or about the same time, were taken up together for hearing.

LPA No.659/2014

2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 13th August, 2014 in W.P.(C) No.2644/2014 filed by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner (respondent No.2 is Union of India). The said writ petition was filed impugning the order of the appellant authority holding the consignment of ‘Lactic Culture’ imported by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner to be non-compliant with the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labeling) Regulations, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Packaging and Labeling Regulations’) and thus refusing the ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) to enable the respondent No.1/writ petitioner to have the said consignment released from the Customs Authorities. The learned Single Judge by the judgment impugned in this appeal held the provisions of the Packaging and Labeling Regulations, for the reason of non-compliance wherewith the NOC was refused, to be not applicable and hence directed the appellant authority to issue the NOC if the consignment was otherwise found to be in conformity with the description as available on the consignment as well as the product description sheet provided by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner.

3. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner claims to be engaged in the business of import, distribution and sale of wide range of products that are used by manufacturers of food and beverages, dietary supplements and pet food. The consignment aforesaid imported by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner and to which these proceedings pertain was of “YO-MIX 305 LYO 50 DCU” which is a blend of defined strains of lactic acid bacteria that is used for direct vat inoculation into milk for preparing yogurt and fermented milk products. The said product is a freeze-dried concentrated lactic culture comprising of lactobacillus bulgaricus and streptococcus thermophilus, along with sucrose and maltodextrin as carriers. According to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner, the said product is a permitted ‘food additive’ within the meaning of The Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 (hereinafter called the Safety and Standards Regulations) and was being imported for sale/supply to distributors and customers.

4. The appellant authority however vide letter dated 21st February, 2014 refused the NOC on the ground that ‘ingredients list was not mentioned on the label’ and thus the safety of the product could not be assessed without knowing the mandatory Labeling requirements as per the Packaging and Labeling Regulations.

5. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner represented that the said product was for industrial use only and not for retail sale and thus the Labeling on the said product did not have to disclose the list of ingredients in terms of the Packaging and Labeling Regulations. Upon the representation not meeting with any success, the respondent No.1/writ petitioner preferred the statutory appeal but which also was dismissed vide communication dated 22nd April, 2014, on the same grounds and also observing that there is no exemption under the Packaging and Labeling Regulations if the package is meant for industrial use. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner was thus advised to export back the consignment to the country of origin and have it re-labeled with a label that discloses the list of ingredients. Thereafter, the writ petition from which this appeal arises was filed. Needless to state that the appellant authority contested the writ petition.

6. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment,