Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Mr.Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, J
R. Manivannan – Appellant
Versus
Food Safety Officer, Puliyankudi, Tenkasi District – Respondent
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 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....
Point of law : Interfering with the sealing/closing of the Petitioners’ factory premises would not effect or hamper the investigation so carried out.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
