M. Venugopal, J.

1. The Appellant/Petitioner has projected the instant intra Court Writ Appeal before this Court as against the order dated 10.10.2014 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24999 of 2014.

2. The Learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order on 10.10.2014 in W.P. No. 24999 of 2014 (filed by the Appellant/Writ Petitioner) in para 18 among other things it is observed that “Admittedly, the Areca Nut (Betel-Nuts) is an agriculture product include to fall within the definition of primary food and such primary food is covered in the definition of food as contained in Section 3(2) of the Food Safety and Standards Act. The definition of 'food' as contained in the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is quite different from that of the definition under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 referred supra and for better appreciation, the relevant definitions under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are quoted herein below:-

'2(v) food' means any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water and includes:-

(a) any article which ordinarily enters into, or is used in the composition or preparation of, human food;

(b) any flavouring matter or condiments and

(c) any other article which the Central Government may, having regard to its use, nature, substance or quality, declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, as food for the purposes of this Act.

2(xii a) 'primary food' means any article of food, being a produce of agriculture or horticulture in its natural form” and further, in para 21 held that “the definition of 'Food' as contained under Section 3(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act is an inclusive provision including any substance whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, which is intended for human consumption and also includes primary food to the extent defined under clause (zk) of Section 2 and also includes any substance used in the food during its manufacture, preparation on treatment to be an article of food as defined under the Food Safety and Standards Act” and consequently came to the conclusion that the Appellant/Petitioner failed to make out any case for granting the relief sought for in the Writ Petition and dismissed the same without costs.

3. The Learned counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner contends that the Appellant is engaged in the business of import, processing and wholesale of raw areca nut commonly called as Betel Nuts in ungarbled form and that the Firm had imported 688 bags of Srilankan Betel Nuts weighing 50,942 kgs from M/s. Commodities Importers, Sri Lanka, as per 'Bill of Entry' No. 5853707 dated 19.06.2014. Also, the Appellant/Firm filed its 'Bill of Entry' in Cochin Port on 19.06.2014 and subsequently, the Third Respondent/Commissioner of Customs, Chennai on 19.06.2014 passed an 'Examination Order' on 19.06.2014, in and by which, a direction was issued to the Appellant/Firm that in order to obtain customs clearance for the consignment, it must obtain a test report and a No Objection Certificate from the Second Respondent/Authorised Officer, Food Safety & Standards Authority of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Chennai.

4. The Learned counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner strenuously submits that the Appellant's consignment comprises of 'Ungarbled Betel Nuts' which are neither intended for, nor commonly used for human consumption and in order to transform it into marketable commodity, 'Ungarbled Betel Nuts' required to undergo a series of multi-stage processes over a period of time that include, inter-alia, cleaning, drying and boiling and in fact, the consignment of import of 'Ungarbled Betel Nuts' would be subjected to the Plant Quarantine Test (PQ Test) in terms of the provision of Clause 3(16) of the Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003 which is issued under