Food product approval advisories lack legal force unless authorised by statute and issued with mandatory parliamentary compliance.

An administrative advisory on product approval under the Food Safety and Standards Act was treated as ineffective unless it was authorised by the parent statute and the subordinate framework. The court further noted that advisories with regulatory effect could not be issued without complying with the mandatory parliamentary laying procedure under the Act. On that basis, the advisory was held to have no force of law and to be beyond the Food Authority's power.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned advisory on product approval had the force of law and fell within the powers of the Food Authority under the Food Safety and Standards Act and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder; (ii) Whether the Food Authority could issue the impugned advisory under Section 16(1), read with Section 16(5), Sections 18 and 22 of the Food Safety and Standards Act without following the procedure of placing the advisories or regulations before both Houses of Parliament under Sections 92 and 93.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned advisory on product approval had the force of law and fell within the powers of the Food Authority under the Food Safety and Standards Act and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder.

Analysis: The advisory was examined against the statutory scheme governing the Food Authority's powers. The majority view accepted that the product approval advisory was not shown to be a legislative instrument having binding force merely by virtue of being issued by the Authority, and that its character had to be tested within the scope of the parent Act and the subordinate legislation.

Conclusion: The impugned advisory had no force of law and was not within the ambit and scope of the power conferred on the Food Authority.

Issue (ii): Whether the Food Authority could issue the impugned advisory under Section 16(1), read with Section 16(5), Sections 18 and 22 of the Food Safety and Standards Act without following the procedure of placing the advisories or regulations before both Houses of Parliament under Sections 92 and 93.

Analysis: The statutory provisions were construed as requiring compliance with the parliamentary laying procedure for measures having regulatory effect. The majority held that the Authority could not bypass the mandatory procedure prescribed by the Act when issuing advisories of this nature.

Conclusion: The Food Authority had no power or authority to issue the impugned advisory without following the procedure laid down under Sections 92 and 93.

Final Conclusion: The majority view prevailed, the advisory was held ineffective in law, and the petition succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrative advisory issued by a statutory authority cannot acquire binding force or be sustained as intra vires unless it is authorised by the parent statute and complies with the mandatory procedure prescribed for measures having regulatory effect.

---