Court upholds refusal of NOC to company for non-compliance with labeling requirements under Food Safety Act. Importance of strict adherence stressed.

The court upheld the respondent's decision to refuse a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to a Private Limited Company for non-compliance with labelling requirements under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The court emphasized the necessity of declaring the complete address of the manufacturer on packaging, dismissing arguments based on past practices and the interpretation of the term "Manufacturer." The petitioner's writ petition was dismissed, highlighting the importance of strict adherence to food safety regulations for products meant for human consumption. The petitioner was advised to seek re-export, subject to legal considerations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Labelling Requirements under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
2. Principles of Natural Justice.
3. Interpretation of "Manufacturer" under Section 3(zd) of the Act.
4. Judicial Review and Scope under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. Relevance of Previous Imports and Past Practices.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Labelling Requirements under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006:
The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, imported 12.5 tonnes of "Desiccated Coconut Fine Grade" from Malaysia. Upon inspection, the fourth respondent refused to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) due to non-compliance with labelling requirements under Regulation 2.2.2:6(i) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packing and Labelling) Regulation, 2011. The label did not include the complete address of the manufacturer/packer, which is a mandatory requirement. The petitioner's argument that the supplier's name and the product's origin (Indonesia) sufficed was rejected. The court emphasized that the name and complete address of the manufacturer must be declared on every package as per the Regulation.

2. Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner contended that the impugned communication was an internal one, and no notice was issued to them, violating principles of natural justice. The court found no specific allegations from the petitioner on how they were disadvantaged or how the Authorized Officer failed to adhere to the procedure under the Regulations. The court noted that the applications for clearance were considered, and inspection was conducted as per the Act.

3. Interpretation of "Manufacturer" under Section 3(zd) of the Act:
The petitioner argued that their supplier falls within the definition of "Manufacturer" under Section 3(zd) of the Act, which includes any person who packs and labels food for sale. However, the court clarified that M/s. BMC, the supplier, is not a manufacturer but merely a supplier. The court emphasized that the name and complete address of the manufacturer must be disclosed on the packaging, and the supplier's details alone do not satisfy this requirement.

4. Judicial Review and Scope under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The court highlighted that under Article 226, it cannot direct authorities to act contrary to statutory provisions. The scope of judicial review is limited to examining whether there was any arbitrariness in the decision-making process, whether statutory provisions were disregarded, or whether the mandatory procedure was not followed. The court found no arbitrariness or procedural lapses in the actions of the Authorized Officer.

5. Relevance of Previous Imports and Past Practices:
The petitioner referred to previous imports through other ports where similar products were permitted with the same packaging. The court dismissed this argument, stating that past illegality cannot justify current non-compliance. Each case must be evaluated on its own merits, and compliance with current regulations is mandatory. The court also noted that the shelf life of the product would expire by May 2015, making the release of the consignment impractical.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the respondent's decision to refuse the NOC due to non-compliance with labelling requirements. The court emphasized the importance of strict compliance with food safety regulations, especially for products intended for human consumption. The petitioner was advised to request re-export, which the fifth respondent would consider in accordance with the law.

---