The classification of food products must align with regulatory standards, and misclassification can render enforcement actions invalid.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:

“(1) Call for the records leading to Exhibit PI Letter No.198/2018/ACFS/KTM dated 09.02.2018 issued to the petitioner by the third respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of Food Safety, Kottayam and Exhibit P2, Report No. 188/2017-18 dated 29-01-2018 of the 5 respondent, State Food Analyst and issue a writ of certiorari and/or other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Exhibit P1 letter issued by the 3^rd respondent and Exhibit P2 report of the State Food Analyst.

(ii) Declare that the product of the Petitioner is “Deliydrated Pineapple Cuttings” falling under the classification of “Dehydrated Fruits” standard of which is prescribed in Regulation 2.3.35 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives)

Regulations, 2011.

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus and/other writ, order or direction, directing the respondents not to proceed against the petitioner on the misconception and misclassification of the product as falling under Regulation 2.3.26 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011.

(iv) Issue such other appropriate writs, orders or directions which are deemed just and necessary in the interest of justice.”

2. Petitioner has been selling dehydrated pineapple cuttings. On obtaining of the sample by Food Safety Officer and getting a report from the Food Analyst, the produce was categorised to be falling under the category of 2.3.26 of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011. This Court vide interim order dated 12.4.2018 granted permission to the petitioner to obtain the reports from the Laboratory attached to State Government and Referral Food Laboratory, Mysore. Aforementioned report from the Lab of Mysore, after deposit of the charges has come on record as Ext.R4(a).

3. Contention of the counsel is that the report does not reveal any use of artificial sweetener except a Natural Sugar Content. Any candy described under Regulations 2.3.26 of the Standards Regulations would have an artificial sweetener but under Regulations 2.3.35 of the Standards Regulations would not have as it would have a natural content of the sugar. Thus the entire exercise is without jurisdiction and the whole purpose of seeking the trial under Section 46 (4)of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and further proceedings would be a farcical exercise.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

5. Interim order of this Court reads as under:

“There will be an interim stay as prayed for, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to get the 2^nd sample sent to the referral lab, which in turn shall test the sample against the standards applicable both for “Dehydrated Pineapple cuttings” falling under regulation 2.3.35 of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulation, 2011 as also against the standards prescribed for “Candied, Crystallized and Glazed Fruits/Vegetable/Rhizome/Fruit Peel”

falling under 2.3.26 of the said Regulation.”

The Report Ext.R4(a) reads as under:

“FORM A (See Regulation 2.2.2 of Food Safety & Standard (Laboratory &

Sample Analysis) Regulation 2011)

Certificate of analysis by the Referral Food Laboratory, Mysore Certificate No. 274F/FSSA/2018 Certified that the sample bearing number 9486 purporting to be a sample of DEHYDRATED PINEAPPLE CUTTINGS was received on 14.05.2018 with memorandum No 198/2018/ACFS/KTM dated 08.05.2018 from D.SIVAKUMAR, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF FOOD SAFETY, 1^st FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM, KERALA-686 002 for analysis. The condition of seals on the container and the outer covering on receipt was as follows Intact and unbroken.

I, Dr. Alok Kumar Srivastava fo