Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 59860
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V. G. Arun, J
ROYALE EDIBLE COMPANY – Appellant
Versus
KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., – Respondent
WP(C)/40347/2022
RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.), MAYA M.V., M.KRISHNAKUMAR
Sampling and testing of food products must adhere to regulations requiring NABL accreditation to ensure compliance with safety standards.
Headnote:
Food Safety - Edible Coconut Oil - Food Safety and Standards Act - Sampling must be done by NABL accredited laboratory as per statutory provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a supplier of Sabari brand coconut oil, contested a show-cause notice after a sample from a batch was found non-compliant with standards. The analysis was done by a lab not accredited by NABL, prompting the petitioner to argue for retesting in an accredited lab due to concerns over compliance.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the samples should be tested in a NABL accredited laboratory, aligning with Food Safety and Standards Act requirements, and ordered further actions to be taken based on the new analysis.
Issues: Whether the test results from a non-NABL accredited laboratory can be accepted for compliance with food safety standards.
Ratio Decidendi: Sampling for food safety must be conducted by NABL accredited laboratories to ensure compliance with statutory standards.
Final Decision: The Supplyco must send the coconut oil sample for analysis to an accredited NABL laboratory.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2022 The petitioner was a regular supplier of Sabari brand of edible coconut oil of the Supplyco. The sample drawn from stock of Sabari brand coconut oil (F23 batch) supplied by the petitioner at the Munnar depot of the Supplyco was tested and found not to be conforming to the standards as per Exts.P2 and P3 reports of CFRD. Based on the reports, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P1 show-cause notice. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 reply to the show-cause notice asserting that the oil manufactured by is sampled at the stage of packing and handling. The same process was adopted with respect to F23 batch also. All tests conformed the standards required for coconut oil. The petitioner appended Ext.P7 request along with Ext.P5 explanation pointing out that the CFRD Lab at Konni which conducted the sampling and issued Exts.P2 and P3 does not have NABL accreditation and is not equipped for testing mineral oil content and insoluble impurities. Therefore, the coconut oil supplied by the petitioner ought to be tested by an NABL accredited laboratory before proceeding further.
2. I heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Supplyco.
3. The Senior Counsel contended that Exts.P2 and P3 cannot be accepted and acted upon in the light of the undisputed fact that CFRD, Konni is not an NABL accredited laboratory. Referring to the provisions of Food Safety and Standards Act , it is contended that the sampling has to be done by an NABL accredited laboratory. It is submitted that the pouches in F23 lot supplied by the petitioner are available at the other depots of Supplyco and the petitioner is willing to get the samples from the said lots tested at an NABL accredited laboratory and will accept the report. 4. The Standing Counsel submitted that over and above the FSSAI standards, the Supplyco also insists on certain other specifications, as can be seen from Ext.P4 and if sampling is to be done, that should cover the parameters set out in Ext.P4 also. It is submitted that F23 batch of Sabari brand coconut oil supplied by the petitioner is now available at the Mavelikkara depot.
In view of the above submissions, the issue can be resolved by the Supplyco being directed to send the sample drawn from F23 batch of coconut oil supplied by the petitioner for analysis to an accredited NABL laboratory. While sending the sample, the Supplyco can point out the parameters regarding which the tests are to be done. The samples shall be collected and sent for analysis in the presence of the petitioner's representative. Being a perishable item, the samples shall be sent for analysis within a week of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Further proceedings based on Ext.P1 show-cause notice will depend upon the report of analysis. The sampling, as directed above, shall be conducted at the petitioner's expenses.
Sd/-
V.G. ARUN JUDGE bpr APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40347/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER (BP).
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TEST REPOT NO.CFRD/K/22/R0095 DATED 25.11.2022 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TEST REPORT NO.CFRD/K/22/R0095-A DATED 25.11.2022.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF E TENDER NOTIFICATION AND INSTRUCTIONS TO TENDERERS FOR THE SUPPLY OF AGMARK GRADE COCONUT OIL IN SABARI BRAND FOR TRIVANDRUM, KOTTAYAM, ERNAKULAM, PALAKKAD & KOZHIKKODE REGIONS OF SUPPLYCO, NO.BP3/38666/21 DATED 10.03.2022.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED
05.12.2022.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF EMAIL DATED 03.12.2022 TO CFRD KONNI.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE MANAGER (BP) DATED
09.12.2022.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF MANUAL OF METHODS OF ANALYSIS OF FOODS OILS AND FATS ISSUED BY FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS AUTHORITY OF INDIA.
