S.M. Subramaniam, J.

The present case is filed to issue a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the respondents from collecting samples and testing the petitioners' milk and milk products without authority of law.

2. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners' company made a submission that the writ petitioners are constrained to move the writ of prohibition only on the ground that certain personal allegations are raised against the writ petitioners' company by the fourth respondent. In view of the fact, that the fourth respondent has raised certain personal allegations and tested the products of the writ petitioner without following procedures contemplated under the Food Safety Act 2006, the writ petitioners are constrained to move the present writ petitions. The learned Senior counsel is fair enough to make a submission that the writ petitioner is ready to face the procedures contemplated under the law if their products are tested under the Food Safety Act and other relevant statutes.

3. This apart, the grievances of the writ petitioners are that the samples were collected from an unidentified location, wherein, the genuinity of the products itself is questionable and therefore such a procedure adopted can never be trusted upon. The very procedure adopted by the respondents 1 and 3 for taking the samples in respect of the products of the writ petitioner itself is not in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, the order of prohibition is warranted.

4. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents 1, 2 and 3 opposed the contentions by stating that the allegations set out in the writ petitions are incorrect. The respondents 1, 2 and 3 are bound to follow the procedure contemplated under the law in respect of testing the food products and the milk products. In this regard the learned Advocate General cited a Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in the case of "Swamy Achyutanand Tirth & others vs Union of India and others in Writ Petition (c) No.159 of 2012". The Honourable Supreme Court considered the seriousness of adulterations in milk products and discussed the consequences and issued the following directions:-

"Considering the Seriousness of the matter and in the light of various orders passed by this Court, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions and observations:-

(i) Union of India and the state Government shall take appropriate steps to implement Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 in a more effective manner.

(ii) States shall take appropriate steps to inform owner of dairy, dairy operators and retailers working in the State that if Chemical adulterants like pesticides, caustic soda and other chemicals are found in the milk, then stringent action will be taken on the State Dairy Operators or retailers or all the persons involved in the same.

(iii) State Food Safety Authority should also identify high risk areas (where there is greater presence of petty food manufacturer/business operator etc.) and times (near festivals etc.) when there is risk of ingesting adulterated milk or milk products due to environmental and other factors and greater number of food samples should be taken from those areas.

(iv) State Food Safety Authorities should also ensure that there is adequate lab testing infrastructure and ensure that all labs have/obtain NABL accreditation to facilitate precise testing. State Government to ensure that State fool testing laboratories/district food laboratories are well-equipped with the technical persons and testing facilities.

(v) Special measures should be undertaken by the State Food Safety Authorities (SFSA) and District Authorities for sampling of milk and milk products, including spot testing through Mobile Food Testing Vans equipped with primary testing kits for conducting qualitative test of adulteration in food.

(vi