Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to interference against the rejection of product approval and whether the product could be considered under Clause 14(2) of the Indian Food Code.
Analysis: The rejection was not set aside on merits. The grievance was treated as one requiring consideration by the competent authority under Clause 14(2) of the Indian Food Code. The petitioner was permitted to submit a fresh application with relevant material, including scientific report, and the authority was directed to examine it within six weeks. The contention that the alcoholic content was below 1% was also left open for consideration by the authority.
Conclusion: The petitioner was left to pursue reconsideration before the first respondent under Clause 14(2) of the Indian Food Code, and no direct relief against the impugned rejection was granted.
Final Conclusion: The matter was disposed of by directing administrative consideration of the petitioner's claim under the applicable food code framework instead of granting immediate judicial relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a product approval dispute turns on classification under the applicable food code, the competent authority must first consider the request on the relevant materials before judicial interference is warranted.