In this PIL, the petitioner challenged food adulteration in Visakhapatnam. The Court reviewed reports filed by the Municipal Corporation and the Institute of Preventive Medicine, accepted the action taken, and dismissed the petition finding no need for continued pendency.
Petition dismissed; no need to keep the Public Interest Litigation pending.
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.
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.161 OF 2015
Date: 14.03.2016
Between: I.M.Ahmed S/o M.Ghouse Mohiuddin, Aged 46 years, Advocate by Profession, R/at. 303 Srija Plaza, Kirlampudi Layout, China Waltair, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
…..Petitioner
and The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC), Tenneti Bhavan, Near RTC Complex, Visakhapatnama and two others.
…..Respondents
The Court made the following: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE
AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.161 OF 2015
PC: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao)
This Public Interest Litigation is filed praying to grant the following relief:
“To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take immediate steps to prevent the food adulteration and served to the general public only after examination of food items which shall display the certification of concerned officers in all the restaurants, hotels, trolley vendors about the quality of food served by them with approval in the interest of the health and protection of general public and consequently direct the respondents to appoint sufficient staff as per the requirement to prevent adulteration to protect the health of general public of the Visakhapatnam City.”
2. In this public interest litigation, petitioner brings to the notice of this Court the news item published in local newspapers about the nonhygienic food supply in organized/un-organized eateries and fruit stalls located at various places in Visakhapatnam City and the deleterious consequences of sale of such food/fruits.
3. As per the directions of this Court, on behalf of the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC), the Commissioner filed detailed report. The Commissioner explains detailed action taken by the Municipal Corporation on the restaurants/hotels and fruit stalls which are found violating the statutory provisions and not maintaining hygienic conditions and supplying poor quality food. The said report is taken on record and accepted.
4. On behalf of respondents 2 and 3, the Director, Institute of Preventive Medicine, Public Health Labs and Food (Health) Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, filed report on the action taken so far. The said report is taken on record and accepted.
5. According to this report, there are 573 Restaurants/Hotels/ Caterers in Visakhapatnam City. The Food Safety Officers of GVMC inspected nearly 423 Restaurants/Hotels and lifted 90 statutory food samples on suspicion of adulteration and out of which, 11 samples were reported as unsafe/substandard/ misbranded. The list of such Restaurants/Hotels is also furnished. The report also delineates initiation of appropriate action in accordance with law.
6. The report also states about the inspection of fruit stalls and taking action against the fruit stalls which are found to be selling unhygienic and unsafe fruits for human consumption. The report also delineates steps taken to educate the people of Visakhapatnam City, the need and necessity to eat quality food and also to maintain hygienic conditions. Various pamphlets are issued and posters are being pasted at vantage points and there has been continuous interaction by the Food Safety Officers with the Managements of Restaurants/Hotels as well as public in general to sensitize the need to maintain hygiene and to consume only quality food/fruits.
7. The respondents assure continuous monitoring and taking appropriate preventive as well as deterrent action against erring managements of restaurants/hotels/caterers/fruit vendors. We are satisfied with the steps taken by the respondents. We hope and expect that the respondents continuously monitor the maintenance of hygienic conditions and provision of quality food by the restaurants/hotels/caterers and provision of quality fruits by the fruit vendors and timely deterrent action against erring establishments/stalls. We hope and expect that appropriate steps will
be taken to strengthen the food safety establishment of GVMC, so that an effective and continuous monitoring can be ensured. Having regard to the same, there is no need to keep the Public Interest Litigation pending.
8. The Public Interest Litigation is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending shall stand closed.
___________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ
___________________________
Date: 14.03.2016 kkm
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.161 OF 2015
Date: 14.03.2016 kkm
I.M. Ahmed
The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation
Director, Institute of Preventive Medicine, Public Health Labs and Food (Health) Administration
Dilip B. Bhosale
Naveen Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
