IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.04.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.5354 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.5877 of 2024 Mr.Jaylabudeen ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Commissioner, Tamilnadu Food Safety And Drug Administration Department, DMS Campus, 5th Floor, No.359 Annasalai, Teynampet, Chennai 600006.

2.The Authorised Officer/The Designated Officer, Tamilnadu Food Safety And Drug Administration Department, Food Safety Wing, Ariyalur District.

3.The State Represented by Inspector Of Police, Jayankondam Police Station, Ariyalur District.

Crime No. 41/2024. ... Respondents Prayer :- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the record in relation to order passed Vide Order No. 90/A2/2023-2024 dated 06.02.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and further direct the 2nd respondent to remove the lock and seal made in the petitioner's shop in the name and style of Dheen Grocery Shop situated at Sannathi Street, Jayankondam, Ariyalur District.

For Petitioner : M/s.P.Tamilavel For Respondents : Mr.K.Tippu Sulthan, Government Advocate (for R1 & R2);

: Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) (for R3)

ORDER

The proceedings of the Designated Officer under the Food Safety and Standards Act dated 06.02.2024, is under challenge in the present writ proceedings.

2. The petitioner states that he is running a Grocery shop in the name and style of Dheen Grocery Shop, situated at Sannathi Street, Jayankondam, Ariyalur District. Admittedly a criminal case is registered against the petitioner and other accused in Crime No.41 of 2024, for the alleged offence under Section 272, 273 & 328 of IPC and under Section 59 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and under Section 7(5) of Cigarette and other Tobacco Products Act, 2003, on 06.02.2024. It is states that 255 Kilo Grams of banned tobacco products were ceased from the shop belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested and subsequently, released on bail.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that under Section 38 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the Food Safety Officer is empowered to seized the goods but he has no power to seal the entire shop. Thus, the action of the respondent of sealing the entire Gocery shop is in violation of the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.P.Tamilvel would further contend that a criminal case has been registered and the banned tobacco products were seized by the authorities. Thus, they can proceed with the prosecution in the manner know to law. Sealing of the entire premises is beyond the scope of the powers conferred under the Act and thus, the writ petition is to be allowed.

5. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side), appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent, would oppose by stating that the criminal case has not only been registered under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, but also under the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was found to be a habitual offender in dealing with the prohibited/banned tobacco products and therefore, the authorities have conducted a joint inspection and seized the goods and sealed the premises since the shop was being run in the name of Grocery shop but the materials stored were banned tobacco products.

6. It is contended that the banned tobacco products were found to be in commercial quantity, which were seized from the premises of the petitioner and therefore, the writ petition is to be rejected.

7. The learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, would contend that the petitioner was running the Grocery shop without any proper license from the competent authority. It is not as if only the banned tobacco products are seized, but the authorities found that the shop itself is without license and therefore, they sealed the entire premise