BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
R. Manivannan - Petitioner
Versus
The Food Safety Officer, Puliyankudi, Tenkasi District & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(MD) No.6057 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD) No.4447 of 2025
Decided On : 06-03-2025
ORDER :
The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to remove the lock and seal over his premises in Survey Nos.203/1, 203/2 and 203/4A, situated at Sivagiri Bit II Village, Sivagiri Taluk, Tenkasi District, forthwith and for consequential orders.
2. The petitioner states that he is the owner of the property concerned with this Writ Petition. He had purchased the same along with his wife Petchiammal in the year 2011. In the said property, the petitioner is running a small scale sugarcane processing unit. In the unit, sugarcane is crushed, converted into juice and jaggery is manufactured therefrom.
3. He pleads that he is running the unit for the past 23 years. The unit has about 30 employees. The petitioner claims he has obtained the approval from the appropriate authorities.
4. He pleads that the second respondent/Inspector of Police, Sivagiri Police Station, Tenkasi District, visited the premises on 24.02.2025 and arrested the petitioner. It was then that the petitioner came to know that an F.I.R. has been registered against him in Crime No.107 of 2025, on the file of Sivagiri Police Station. He is accused of having committed the offences under Section 24(1) of the Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 [hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''] and Section 132 of B.N.S., 2023. The accusation against him is that he had purchased tobacco products from the State of Kerala and had secreted the same in his premises.
5. The petitioner obtained bail and is complying with the conditions. He pleads that the first respondent had locked and sealed the premises in an arbitrary manner. According to the petitioner, there are about 1400 Kilograms of processed jaggery in the premises. In addition, he states about 130 Kilograms of jaggery is was in the burning unit, at the time of sealing. Being perishable goods, he seeks an order to remove the lock and seal.
6. The petitioner pleads that he has availed loans from the several Nationalized Banks and it is only from and out of the income generated from the jaggery unit, he is repaying the installments. He states that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to lock and seal the premises and hence, he has come forward with this Writ Petition for the above said reliefs.
7. When the matter came up for admission, Mr.G.Suriyananth, learned Additional Government Pleader took notice for the first respondent and Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) has entered appearance for the second respondent.
8. Mr.G.Suriyananth, learned Additional Government Pleader states that the FSSAI registration of the petitioner had expired on 11.10.2022. He further states that as the petitioner has secreted tobacco products in the premises, the Police were constrained to initiate action under Section 24(1) of the Act. He states that the petitioner has violated Section 132 of B.N.S., and consequently, the tobacco products were seized and the premises were locked and sealed. He further points out that the first respondent has passed an order in Aa.No.699/A2/2025, dated 05.03.2025, imposing a fine of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner. He states that if the fine amount is paid, the premises will be unlocked.
9. Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the second respondent echoes the submission made by Mr.G.Suriyananth, learned Additional Government Pleader.
10. It is not in dispute that the first respondent has sealed the premises. The power of the Food Safety Officer is set forth under Section 38 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 . The said Act does not empower the Food Safety Officer to seal the premises. However, the rules that, have been framed in the year 2011, confer certain powers on the first respondent to lock and seal the premises. This is outlined under Rule 2.1.3(4) of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 . In addition to the powers granted to the Food Safety Officer under Section 38 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
The Food Safety Officer lacks authority to seal premises without adhering to statutory provisions, as established under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Sealing of premises under food safety regulations requires strict adherence to statutory conditions, which were not met in this case.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the sealing of the shop under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 falls under the authority of the Commissioner, as per Section 34, and....
The authorities' action in locking the premises was unjustified, and the court directed them to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner for unlocking the premises.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 34 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, specifically regarding emergency prohibition orders an....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 34(6) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the designated officer must issue a certificate within seven days of receiv....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.