Nestle India Ltd. v. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India

By FG LawKit

Nestle India Limited challenged an order passed by the Chief Executive Officer (Respondent No.2) on 05/06/2015, which directed the manufacture, sale, and distribution of nine types of noodles manufactured by the company.
The Petitioner, manufacturing "MAGGI Noodles" for over 30 years in India, was granted a license under the old Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in 1983.
The Food Authority and Commissioner of Pune claimed the ban orders were passed in public interest after Food Laboratory Reports indicated lead in excess of permissible limits and MSG being found in the product, contradicting the Petitioner's declaration ("no added MSG").
The Petitioner had been granted approval for 8 out of 9 variants under the new product approval regime in 2012, but this was later closed without reasons.

Whether the Writ Petition under Article 226 is maintainable despite the existence of an alternative remedy.
Whether there was a violation of principles of natural justice on the part of the Food Authority by passing the impugned orders without issuing a show cause notice.
Whether the Food Laboratories where the samples were tested were accredited and recognized Laboratories as required by the Act and Regulations.
What is the source of power under which the impugned orders were passed and whether such orders could have been passed under various sections of the Act.
Whether the ban orders on all 9 Variants were arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, given tests were conducted only on 3 Variants.

The court granted the Petition and set aside the impugned orders of the Food Authority.
The court deemed it necessary to allow the Petitioner to manufacture and sell its product, subject to a fresh round of testing (as detailed in the Observation).

The Judges concluded the following key points:

Violation of Natural Justice: Principles of natural justice have not been followed before passing the impugned orders. This ground alone makes the impugned orders liable to be set aside.
Non-Accredited Laboratories: The Food Laboratories where the samples were tested were not accredited and recognized Laboratories as provided under the Act and Regulations for testing the presence of lead, and therefore, no reliance could be placed on the said results.
Procedural Violation: The mandatory procedure which has to be followed as per Section 47(1) of the Act and Regulations framed thereunder, was not followed.
Constitutional Violation: The impugned orders were held to be violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Direction for Re-Testing: The Court directed that fresh samples be drawn and tested in three specified accredited laboratories. If the results showed that lead in these samples was within the permissible limit, the Petitioner would be permitted to start its manufacturing and selling process.

The judgment of the Bombay High Court set aside the ban order dated 05.06.2015 passed by the FSSAI.
With the passing of the judgment, all proceedings including the act of seizure dated 10.08.2015 by the officials of the opposite party became null and void.