Food safety inspection powers allow sampling, seizure and sealing of premises when statutory safeguards are followed.

Section 38 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 empowers Food Safety Officers to enter premises, take samples, seize suspected adulterated food or adulterants, and keep articles in safe custody, subject to the search and inspection safeguards under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Rule 2.1.3(4) of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 also permits sealing of premises for investigation where compliance with section 38(1)(c) or its proviso is not possible, including when the food business operator is unavailable. On the materials noted, the challenge was treated as premature because purchase and sales records were not produced despite notice.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Food Safety Officer had power to enter the premises, take samples, seize/secure suspected adulterated stock and seal the premises under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011, and whether the writ petition seeking to restrain interference was maintainable.

Analysis: Section 38 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 empowers the Food Safety Officer to take samples, seize food or adulterants appearing to be in contravention of the Act, and keep such articles in safe custody, while sub-section (5) requires observance of the search and inspection safeguards under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Rule 2.1.3(4) of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 further permits sealing of premises for investigation where compliance with section 38(1)(c) or its proviso is not possible, including when the food business operator is not available. As the petitioner had not produced purchase and sales records despite notice, the challenge was treated as premature and unsupported by the materials placed before the Court.

Conclusion: The action of the authorities was held to be within statutory power, and the writ petition failed.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner's request for restraint against the authorities was rejected, and the proceedings were permitted to continue in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing statute and rules expressly authorize sampling, seizure and sealing for investigation, a writ petition to prevent such action is premature unless the petitioner first establishes lack of jurisdiction or illegality.

---