https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183273 The Delhi HC did not finally determine the challenge to the guidelines, the quo warranto prayer, or the request concerning the Ghaziabad laboratory. It noted that the relief sought regarding closure of the laboratory had become unnecessary because the administration had been transferred, the laboratory was stated to remain operational, and an upgrade was proposed. The Court directed the respondents to file affidavits identifying authorised private laboratories for food testing, laboratories competent to test imported food articles, and the relevant notifications, and to disclose their stand on the Chairperson's eligibility under Section 5 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. It also clarified that what Indian law prohibits cannot be validated merely because CODEX Alimentarius permits it. en-us Wed, 27 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Jun 2016 12:18:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183273 The Delhi HC did not finally determine the challenge to the guidelines, the quo warranto prayer, or the request concerning the Ghaziabad laboratory. It noted that the relief sought regarding closure of the laboratory had become unnecessary because the administration had been transferred, the laboratory was stated to remain operational, and an upgrade was proposed. The Court directed the respondents to file affidavits identifying authorised private laboratories for food testing, laboratories competent to test imported food articles, and the relevant notifications, and to disclose their stand on the Chairperson's eligibility under Section 5 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. It also clarified that what Indian law prohibits cannot be validated merely because CODEX Alimentarius permits it. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 27 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183273