JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in Report No. Act-309/2015-16 dated 09.09.2015 on the file of the second respondent and consequential intimation in R.No. 4580/D.O/CH/FSSA/2015 dated 16.10.2015 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and not applicable to the petitioner and proceeds for the and thereby direct the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner.)

The lis on hand has been instituted questioning the order passed by the first respondent in Proceeding dated 16.10.2015, which is an intimation to the Food Business Operator/petitioner, informing that the sample 'Dhaniya Whole' taken from the petitioner on 20.08.2015 was tested in the Laboratory and recalled as unsafe food.

2. The petitioner, challenging the said order, contended that they are using permissible chemical for processing raw Dhania and they have not committed any irregularity. However, the report of the respondent authorities reveal that the petitioner has used chemicals over and above the prescribed limit, more specifically, colour content sulphur-di-oxide and moisture. Based on the report, actions were initiated and the petitioner paid the fine and accordingly, the case was closed.

3. In view of the fact that large scale allegations of adulterations in public domain, this Court directed the authorities of the Food Safety Directorate to be present. Dr.Sathish Kumar, Designated Officer, Chennai and Mrs. Radhika, Analysist, Guindy Food Lab, Chennai -32 and Mr.R.Kannan, Food Safety Officer, Chennai -15 are present.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader on instructions, made a submission that all prescriptions are contemplated under the provisions of the regulations and the authorities are conducting frequent inspections, collecting samples, testing the same and initiate actions. As far as the petitioner is concerned, actions were taken and the petitioner paid the fine amount and the case was closed.

5. Food Adulterations are commonly found in the public domain. Taking some samples and testing the same in the Laboratory alone would not resolve the serious issues relating to Food Adulterations. Pursuant to the Enactment namely Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the Food Safety Department has been constituted and Commissioner of Food Safety is the Head of the Department. When a separate Department has been constituted in result of an Enactment, then such Departments specially constituted are expected to function in an efficient manner, so as to ensure that the purpose and object of the Act are complied with. However, it is not happening as day-by-day Food Adulterations are increasing and many health issues on account of Food Adulterations are in the public domain. When a separate Department is functioning for Food Safety and Laboratories are functioning and many number of officials are appointed, then there is no reason whatsoever to allow such large scale Food Adulterations in commercial establishments, Restaurants, etc.,

6. This Food Safety Department and its functioning are to be improved, so as to ensure that adequate awareness and sensitiveness are created and prosecutions are launched against the traders, who have involved in such Food Adulterations and such prosecutions must be made effectively and by following the procedures, so as to see that the offenders are convicted.

7. The Officials, who are present before this Court, informed that the Food Safety Officers are collecting samples and those samples are tested in the Laboratory and actions are initiated. However, Chennai City is concerned, prosecution has been initiated in 21 cases and the adjudication process are in progress in 580 cases.

8. The Commissioner, Food Safety, necessarily has to initiate all appropriate actions for the purpose of creating awareness amongst the people and the ill effects of Food Adulterations, punishments co