Partly allowed

M/s.Murali Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Food Safety

Madras HC7 Mar 2024WP/4457/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras set aside four writ petitions challenging orders by the Commissioner of Food Safety and Designated Officers regarding a tobacco product. The single-bench order held that the impugned orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as most petitioners were not heard before the orders, with the court directing a re-hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders are set aside due to violation of principles of natural justice; petitioners directed to appear for a re-hearing.

M/s.Murali Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd. Vs The… — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

2024:MHC:1222

¶2

W.P.No.4457 of 2022 etc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 07.03.2024

¶5

CORAM :

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶7

W.P.Nos.4457, 16569, 21220 & 8095 of 2022, and W.M.P.Nos. 4587, 4588, 15849, 20202, 20203, 8072 & 8075 of 2022

¶8

W.P.No.4457 of 2022

¶9

M/s. Murari Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Authorized Signatory, Mr.K.Prabhakaran, 6043, Naya Bans, Delhi – 110006. .. Petitioner

¶10

¶11

1.The Commissioner of Food Safety,

¶12

5^th Floor, DMS Office Building, 359, Anna Salai, DMS Campus, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006.

¶13

2.The Designated Officer, Tamil Nadu Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Saidapet, Chennai- 600 015. .. Respondents

¶14

W.P.No.16569 of 2022

¶15

M/s. Murari Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Products, Rep. By its Authorized Signatory, Mr.K.Prabhakaran, Preeth Vihaar, Patparganj Indl Area, Delhi – 110 092. .. Petitioner

¶16

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

1/6

¶19

W.P.No.4457 of 2022 etc

¶20

The Designated Officer, Tamil Nadu Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Old Board Buildings Campus, Salem – 636 001.

¶21

.. Respondent

¶22

W.P.No.21220 of 2022

¶23

M/s. Murari Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Products, Rep. By its Authorized Signatory, Mr.K.Prabhakaran, Preeth Vihaar, Patparganj Indl Area, Delhi – 110 092.

¶24

.. Petitioner

¶25

¶26

1.The Designated Officer, Tamil Nadu Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, No.33, West Jones Road, Saidapet, Chennai- 600 015.

¶27

2.The Commissioner of Food Safety, Food Safety and Drug Administration, 5^th Floor, DMS Office Building, 259, Anna Salai, DMS Campus, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006.

¶28

.. Respondents

¶29

W.P.No.8095 of 2022

¶30

M/s. Murari Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt Ltd, Rep. By its Authorized Signatory, Mr.K.Prabhakaran, Patparganj Indl Area, Delhi – 110 092.

¶31

.. Petitioner

¶32

¶33

1.The Commissioner of Food Safety,

¶34

5^th Floor, DMS Office Building, 359, Anna Salai, DMS Campus, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006.

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

2/6

¶37

W.P.No.4457 of 2022 etc

¶38

2.The Designated Officer, Tamil Nadu Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Saidapet, Chennai- 600 015.

¶39

.. Respondents

¶40

Prayer in W.P.No.4457 of 2022: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of 2^nd respondent in his proceedings vide Lr.No.795/DO/CH/FSSA/2021-22 dated 04.01.2022 and quash the same and subsequently direct the respondents and their men from anyway taking any punitive action in respect of the petitioner's product namely, “HANS Chaap Tobacco” in view of the final orders dated 02.12.2016, 06.03.2017, 07.09.2017, 05.11.2020 & 04.12.2020 passed in respect of the above product by the Referral Food Laboratories situated in Pune and Mysore respectively.

¶41

Prayer in W.P.No.16569 of 2022: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of the respondent vide his proceedings in R.No.1156/FSSA/2022-23 dated 10.06.2022 and quash the same and subsequently direct the respondents and their men from anyway taking any punitive action in respect of the petitioner's product namely, “HANS Chaap Tobacco” in view of the final orders dated 02.12.2016, 06.03.2017, 07.09.2017, 05.11.2020 & 04.12.2020 passed in respect of the above product by the Referral Food Laboratories situated in Pune and Mysore respectively.

¶42

Prayer in W.P.No.21220 of 2022: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of 1^nd respondent vide his proceedings in R.No.1132/D.O/CH/FSSA/2022-23 dated 20.07.2022 and quash the same and subsequently direct the respondents and their men from anyway taking any punitive action in respect of the petitioner's product namely, “HANS Chaap Tobacco” in view of the final orders dated 02.12.2016, 06.03.2017, 07.09.2017, 05.11.2020 & 04.12.2020 passed in respect of the above product by the Referral Food Laboratories situated in Pune and Mysore respectively.

¶43

Prayer in W.P.No.8095 of 2022: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

3/6

¶46

W.P.No.4457 of 2022 etc

¶47

mandamus calling for the records on the file of 2^nd respondent in his proceedings vide Lr.No.764/DO/CH/FSSA/2021-22 dated 15.12.2021 and quash the same and subsequently direct the respondents and their men from anyway taking any punitive action in respect of the petitioner's product namely, “HANS Chaap Tobacco” in view of the final orders dated 02.12.2016, 06.03.2017, 07.09.2017, 05.11.2020 & 04.12.2020 passed in respect of the above product by the Referral Food Laboratories situated in Pune and Mysore respectively.

¶48

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Saikumarran (in all writ petitions)

¶49

For Respondents : Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.K.Tippu Sultan Government Advocate ` (in all writ petitions)

¶50

COMMON ORDER

¶51

In these four writ petitions, the impugned orders have been passed contrary to the principles of natural justice insofar as it is only in the case of one petition (impugned order dated 20.07.2022) where the petitioner has been heard prior to passing of the order. In all other cases, the impugned order has come to be passed without hearing the petitioners.

¶52

In such circumstances, and since Mr.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General would also fairly accede to the position that there has been no hearing of the petitioners prior to passing of the impugned orders dated 04.01.2022, 10.06.2022 and 15.12.2021 respectively, let the petitioners appear before the

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

4/6

¶55

W.P.No.4457 of 2022 etc

¶56

Designated Officer, Tamil Nadu Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Saidapet, Chennai- 600 015 on Friday i.e., 15.03.2024 for re-hearing of the appeal. Orders, de novo, will be passed prior to 19.04.2024 in accordance with law and the Food Safety Standards, Act 2006 and allied Rules.

¶57

Impugned orders are set aside on the short point of

¶58

violation of principles of natural justice alone. These writ petitions stand disposed in terms of this order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶59

07.03.2024

¶60

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes ssm

¶61

¶62

1.The Commissioner of Food Safety,

¶63

5^th Floor, DMS Office Building, 359, Anna Salai, DMS Campus, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006.

¶64

2.The Designated Officer, Tamil Nadu Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Saidapet, Chennai- 600 015

¶65

The Designated Officer, Tamil Nadu Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Old Board Buildings Campus, Salem – 636 001.

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶67

5/6

¶68

W.P.No.4457 of 2022 etc

¶69

DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.

¶70

ssm

¶71

W.P.Nos.4457, 16569, 21220 & 8095 of 2022

¶72

07.03.2024

¶73

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶74

6/6

M/s.Murali Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Food Safety

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Murali Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Food Safety

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Sri Sairam Impex, Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Sri Jaya Maaruthi Yarn India P Ltd. Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory

Dr.B.R.Raveena Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

T.Yellappa Vs Tmt.K.M.Sarayu

R.Rani Vs The District Collector to Tiruvallur

Dr. Yogakeerthika.P Vs the State of Tamilnadu