The Food Safety Officer has the authority to seize products based on apparent contraventions of the Act, and tobacco products must be evaluated independently without cross-comparisons to other products.

1. This Writ Petition had been filed in the nature of a Certiorai seeking records relating to a seizure memo, dated 27.08.2022 by the second respondent/Food Safety Officer, Thiruppanandhal Block & Thiruvidaimarudur Block, Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration, Office of the Deputy Director of Health Services, Thanjavur, in the name of the petitioner company, M/s. Lakshmi Traders, Ammachatram, Thiruvidaimaruthur Taluk, Thanjavur District and to quash the same and to pass further directions.

2. Heard Mr. P.M. Vishnuvarthanan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Muthu Vijayan, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. The learned Special Government Pleader had also filed counter affidavit.

3. In the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, it had been stated that the petitioner is running a tobacco manufacturing unit as a partnership firm and had obtained necessary licences and registration under the Goods and Services Tax Act. It had also been stated that the second respondent had inspected the processing unit at Ammachatram at Thiruvidaimaruthur Taluk in Thanjavur District and also the stock room-cum-godown on 27.08.2022 and had issued a seizure memo in Form No. II on 27.08.2022, which has been issued under Section 3 8 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

4. The main premise under which the goods were seized was that they were contradictory to Regulation 2.3.4 and to Section 26 of the aforementioned Act. It is contended by the petitioner that the seized products do not fall under such Regulation 2.3.4 or under Section 26 of the Act. It had been stated that the third respondent on 07.10.2022 further seized 10 tons raw tobacco along with one Omni van and APE auto along with Rs.60,000/- cash and had registered an FIR in Cr.No.985 of 2022 under Sections 5, 20(1), 22(a) and 24(1) of COTPA Act, 2003, r/w Section 3 28 of IPC. It had been stated that the respondents are in possession of the seized items and the petitioner and his partner were also arrested and they have subsequently obtained bail.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner first placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 2093 of 2018 and W.P. Nos. 3076 and 3084 of 2019, [ The Designated Officer, The Food and Safety and Drugs Control Department, Villupuram vs. Jeyavilas Tobacco Traders LLP ] dated 20.01.2023, wherein, after quite an elaborate discussion, the Division Bench appears to have taken a view in favour of the respondent/Writ Petitioner therein and had stated that the various notifications issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety by relying on Regulation 2.3.4 are not within the powers of the Commissioner and that the Commissioner had exceeded his authority in issuing successive notifications. The notifications were struck down and Writ Appeal was dismissed and the Writ Petitions were allowed.

6. It must be stated that though an impression was given that the order of the Division Bench is still in force, a little research showed that the Honourable Supreme Court had actually stayed the said Division Bench judgment very specifically, by order dated 25.04.2023. In view of that particular order of the Honourable Supreme Court, no reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Division Bench.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner then placed reliance on the common order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (MD) No. 18115 of 2021 and batch [M/s E.S. Mydeen and Company, Kumbakonam vs. Designated Off