A writ petition regarding perishable goods was dismissed as withdrawn due to the passage of time. The respondent AGP agreed to the destruction of goods upon prior notice to food inspectors.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO.1143 OF 2005
Parle Products Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
...Petitioner.
...Respondents.
Ms.L. Bachhani for the Petitioner. Mr.C. R. Sonawane, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO, J. AND DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.
February 8, 2006 .
P.C.
On account of passage of time, the Learned Counsel
states that no purpose would be served in pursuing the petition as goods are perishable goods. In the light of that, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
In so far as the goods are concerned, the Learned AGP
has no objection to the Petitioners destroying the goods provided due notice is given to the Food Inspectors, Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5. It would be open to the Food Inspectors to remain present at the time the goods are being destroyed. Notice shall be of not
less than 15 days in advance of the destruction of the goods.
2
( F.I. Rebello, J.)
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)
Parle Products Pvt. Ltd.
The State of Maharashtra
F.I. Rebello
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
