*GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT* M/s. E.S. Mydeen and Co. Vs. The Designated Officer & Anr. W.P.(MD) No. 18115 to 18117, 20397 of 2021 & 13398 of 2022 Dated: 18.07.2022 *Honourable MR. JUSTICE G.R. SWAMINATHAN* allowed the Writ Petition in the matter relating to *“Unmanufactured Tobacco – Food Safety”,* and further observed and held as follows
[11/1, 20:34] Sekarreporter 1: *GLIMPSE OF A LATEST VERDICT*
M/s. E.S. Mydeen and Co. Vs. The Designated Officer & Anr.
W.P.(MD) No. 18115 to 18117, 20397 of 2021 & 13398 of 2022
Dated: 18.07.2022
*Honourable MR. JUSTICE G.R. SWAMINATHAN* allowed the Writ Petition in the matter relating to *“Unmanufactured Tobacco – Food Safety”,* and further observed and held as follows:
i) The writ petitioners deal with “unmanufactured tobacco”. They purchase raw tobacco leaves, spray jaggery water, cut into small pieces and package it. The stand of the department is that (1) the raw tobacco leaves have been subjected to manufacturing process for human consumption and therefore passed the impugned orders prohibiting their sale & (2) The definition of the term “food” in Section 3(1)(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, read with Regulation 2.3.4 of the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011, categorically mandates that Nicotine shall not be used as an ingredient in any food product.
ii) The Hon’ble Division Bench in (1963) 2 MLJ 71 (Pachiappa Chettiar V. State of Madras) has held that, sprinkling jaggery water on dry tobacco and bulking it would not amount to a process of manufacture.
iii) Held that the products dealt with would fall within the definition of the term “food” under Section 3(1)(j) of the Act. If the same had been used as an ingredient in any food product, it would attract Regulation 2.3.4. However, here, the tobacco leaf itself is a food product. The Nicotine is inherent in the product itself. The petitioners have not added Nicotine as an ingredient in the food product. Based on Pachiappa Chettiar case, held that the petitioners are dealing only with unmanufactured tobacco and that they have not been mixing the same in any food product.
iv) The Counsel for Respondent contended that Articles 21 & 47 (Duty of State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health). Observed that the same would be impressed if the State has enforced Article 47 in its totality. However, the State monopolized the privilege of selling liquor. Therefore, the above argument is like devil quoting the scripture or pot calling the kettle black.
[11/1, 20:34] Sekarreporter 1: 👍
