Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 17975
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SYAM KUMAR V.M., J, J.
Spices Board – Appellant
Versus
Petitioner – Respondent
WA 534/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. Antony Mukkath
For the Respondents: Sri.Premjit Nagendran, Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose
A circular prohibiting retesting of samples lacks legal authority and is arbitrary, violating principles of fairness under Article 14.
Headnote:(A) Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Regulations of 1989 - Circular prohibiting retesting of samples - Writ petition filed to quash circular and letters directing destruction of goods - Held, circular suffers from arbitrariness and lacks legal authority, thus quashed by the learned Single Judge. (Paras 3, 9, 10, 11)
(B) Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Subordinate legislation can be challenged on grounds of arbitrariness - The prohibition against retesting without legal basis is arbitrary and unreasonable. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an exporter of spices, challenged a circular that barred retesting of samples found to contain 'Sudan Dye', arguing that it was arbitrary and detrimental to their business interests. The learned Single Judge quashed the circular citing arbitrariness and lack of legal grounding.
Findings of Court:
The circular was found to be arbitrary and lacking legal authority, leading to significant economic consequences for exporters. The court upheld the need for fairness in sample testing procedures.
Issues: Whether the circular prohibiting retesting of samples is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the circular's total prohibition on retesting lacks legal authority and is arbitrary, emphasizing the need for fair testing practices.
Result: Writ Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioner challenges a circular prohibiting retesting of samples. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented by both sides regarding the legality of the circular. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. the court's analysis of the circular's legality and arbitrariness. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. final decision dismissing the appeal against the learned single judge's order. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2025 Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 08.01.2025 in W.P.(C) No.41366 of 2022. Appellant was the 1st respondent in the W.P.(C). Respondents 1 and 2 are the petitioner and the 2nd respondent respectively in the W.P.(C). Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the W.P.(C).
2. The W.P.(C) was filed by the petitioner inter alia seeking to quash Ext.P6 circular issued by the 1st respondent to the extent it barred the re-testing of samples readied for exports. A prayer to quash Exts.P3 and P5 letters issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner to the extent it directed the petitioner to destroy the goods as well as a direction to the 1st respondent to draw and retest the sample of the goods that the petitioner proposed to export to UAE was also made in the W.P.(C).
3. The learned Single Judge had vide the impugned judgment allowed the W.P.(C) and had quashed Ext.P6 circular to the extent it imposed a blanket ban on retesting inter alia holding that it suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. The learned Single Judge had also quashed Ext.P3 and Ext.P5 letters to the extent it directed the petitioner to destroy the relevant goods, and also issued a direction to the 1st respondent to draw and retest the sample of the subject product of the petitioner for the presence of ‘ Sudan Dye’ either in their own laboratory or in such other accredited laboratory. The 1st respondent was also directed to pass appropriate orders based on such retest within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The 1st respondent has filed this Writ Appeal aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge.
4. The bare facts necessary for the disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows. Petitioner is a manufacturer/seller/ exporter of spices and curry powders. The petitioner is registered with the 1st respondent as an exporter and is duty bound to meet the quality specifications of the country to which the goods are to be exported as well as the standards prescribed by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 . The test for ensuring compliance with the standards is carried out by the 1st respondent. When the relevant consignment of the petitioner was ready, the same was offered for sampling to the 1st respondent. The report was returned alleging that the consignment had been contaminated by 'Sudan Dye' which is a colouring agent used by farmers to give red colour to unripe chillies which is a prohibited item. The 1st respondent called upon the petitioner vide Ext.P3 letter stating that the concerned goods are to be destroyed under intimation to the 1st respondent and under the supervision of its officials. The petitioner upon receipt of Ext.P3 requested that a second test viz., a retest of the goods be carried out so far as the petitioner was positive that they had made purchases only from trusted sources and the presence of finding 'Sudan Dye' was too remote. In response to the said request, the 1st respondent issued a letter stating that as per Ext.P6 circular dated 01.01.2014 issued by the 1st respondent, no request for retesting of samples can be entertained for any reason whatsoever. The petitioner, in so far as the goods which were directed to be destroyed was worth more than Rs.30.36 lakhs, had got the samples drawn and tested specifically for 'Sudan Dye' in three other laboratories, accredited to the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) which were notified under Section 43 of the Food S
