Food Authority's Advisories lacked legal force; Issuance without parliamentary procedure deemed unauthorized.

The High Court held that the Advisories issued by the Food Authority did not have the force of law and were beyond its authority under the Act and Regulations. The court determined that the Food Authority lacked the power to issue the Advisories without following the prescribed procedure of placing them before both Houses of Parliament. As a result, the petition was allowed based on the majority view of the judges, emphasizing the importance of adherence to statutory procedures when issuing Advisories for legal compliance and parliamentary oversight.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the impugned Advisories issued by Respondent No.2 have the force of law and are within the scope of the power conferred on the Food Authority under the Act and RegulationsRs.
2. Whether the Food Authority had the power to issue the Advisories without following the procedure laid down under the ActRs.

Analysis:
1. The High Court addressed the first issue regarding the force of law of the Advisories. One judge, V.M. Kanade, J., opined that the Advisories, specifically the one related to product approval, do not have the force of law. Another judge, G.S. Kulkarni, J., disagreed with this view. The matter was then referred to a third judge, Ranjit More, J., who concurred with V.M. Kanade, J.'s view that the impugned Advisory on product approval does not have the force of law and is beyond the power of the Food Authority under the Act and Regulations.

2. Regarding the second issue on the authority of the Food Authority to issue the Advisories, V.M. Kanade, J. held that the Food Authority did not have the power to issue the Advisories without following the prescribed procedure of placing them before both Houses of Parliament. G.S. Kulkarni, J. had a different opinion on this matter. The third judge, Ranjit More, J., aligned with V.M. Kanade, J.'s view, stating that the Food Authority lacked the authority to issue the impugned Advisory on Product Approval without following the statutory procedure.

3. The majority view, as per V.M. Kanade, J. and Ranjit More, J., prevailed in both issues. The High Court concluded that the impugned Product Approval Advisory issued by the Food Authority does not have the force of law and is beyond the authority conferred upon the Food Authority under the Act and Regulations. Consequently, the petition was allowed and disposed of based on the majority view.

4. The judgment emphasized that the Food Authority must adhere to the statutory procedures laid down in the Act, specifically Sections 92 and 93, when issuing Advisories to ensure compliance with the legal framework and parliamentary oversight. The parties were directed to act in accordance with the court's decision authenticated by the Registry.

---