Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Godawat Pan Masala Products I.P. Ltd. & Anr v. Union of India & Ors

Pays/Territoire
Inde
Type de cour
Nationale - cour supérieure
Date
Aoû 2, 2004
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
Supreme Court of India
Siège de la cour
New Delhi
Juge
Balakrishnan, K., G.
Srikrishna, B., N.
Numéro de référence
(2004) INSC 420
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Alimentation et nutrition
Mot clé
Contrôle de qualité alimentaire/innocuité des produits alimentaires
Résumé
The issue raised in these cases was the validity of notifications issued by the State Food (Health) Authority by which the manufacture, sale, storage and distribution of pan masala and gutka (pan masala containing tobacco) were banned for different periods. The appellants were engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture and trade of these products. They challenged the validity of the notifications on the ground that, among others, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vested the power to declare a substance as injurious to health only with the Central Government and no such power was vested with the State Government. The court had to decide about the power of the Food (Health) Authority to issue an order of prohibition, whether permanently or quasi-permanently, under Section 7(iv) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It examined the relevant provisions and concluded that Section 7(iv) of the Act was not an independent source of power for the state authority. The power of the Food (Health) Authority under the rules according to Section 24 of the Act was only of transitory nature and intended to deal with local emergencies and could last only for short period while such emergency lasted. The power of banning an article of food, on the ground that it was injurious to health, belonged appropriately to the Central Government. The state Food (Health) Authority had no power to prohibit the manufacture for sale, storage, sale or distribution of any article, whether used as an article or adjunct thereto or not used as food. Such a power could only arise as a result of wider policy decision and emanate from Parliamentary legislation. The impugned notifications were ultra vires the Act and, hence, bad in law. They were unconstitutional and void as abridging the fundamental rights of the appellants guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Therefore, the notifications were quashed.
Texte intégral
420.html

Références

Cited by