Packaging and labelling compliance dispute left to competent authority, with one-time relaxation to be considered on merits.

Packaging and labelling compliance for imported edible products raised technical questions on label particulars, manufacturer or source disclosure, language particulars, batch details and ingredient information. In Article 226 jurisdiction, the Madras HC declined to examine disputed factual compliance or interfere with the impugned decision itself, holding that such issues were for the competent authority. The petitioner was directed to seek one-time relaxation before that authority, which was to consider the request on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned labelling dispute warranted interference in writ jurisdiction and whether the petitioner should be permitted to seek one-time relaxation before the competent authority.

Analysis: The dispute turned on compliance with the packaging and labelling requirements applicable to imported edible products. The questions raised involved technical aspects, including the sufficiency of label particulars, the identity of the manufacturer or source seller, language particulars, batch or serial details, and disclosure of ingredients. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court declined to enter into disputed technical questions or to determine factual compliance itself. Since the competent superior authority was empowered to consider a request for relaxation, the petitioner was not left without a remedy.

Conclusion: The writ court did not quash the impugned decision and instead directed the petitioner to seek one-time relaxation before the competent authority, which was to decide the request on merits in accordance with law.

---