K.S.Alexander @ Kattanam Shaji vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 18466 Ker

                              -1-

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
                                &
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
  WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 17TH BHADRA, 1943
                    WP(C) NO. 42140 OF 2018
PETITIONER/S:

          K.S.ALEXANDER @ KATTANAM SHAJI
          AGED 48 YEARS
          S/O. SAMUEL, KOPPARA HOUSE, KATTACHIRA, PALLIKKAL
          P.O., BHARANIKAVU VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA TALUK,
          ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN- 690 503, CHAIRMAN,
          ONATTUKARA COCONUT PRODUCER COMPANY LTD.,VETTICODE,
          VETTICODE P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690 537
          BY ADVS.
          M.G.SREEJITH
          SRI.G.PADMAKUMAR


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SEVCRETARY, GOVERNMENT
          SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
    2     THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
          DEPARTMENT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT
          SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN - 695 001.
    3     THE COMMISSIONER,
          FOOD AND SAFETY, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FOOD
          AND SAFETY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
OTHER PRESENT:

          SRI.K.P.HARISH, SR GP FOR RESPONDENTS


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No. 42140 of 2018           -2-




                              JUDGMENT

S. Manikumar, C. J.

Instant public interest writ petition has been filed for the

following reliefs:-

"1. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to take appropriate legal proceedings against the producers and manufactures who are violating the provisions conducting adulteration in Coconut oil and to publish a black list and to include their names and brand names of them.

2. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to take necessary precautions in the issuance of licence to conduct the coconut oil manufacture, storage, sales and distribution and to monitor the packing proper labelling and sales.

3. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to initiate necessary speedy steps for the adjudication proceedings before the adjudicating officer.

4. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to frame necessary rules to prevent the transportation and importing of Palm Kernel oil to the State.

5. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to frame necessary rules to enable to initiate criminal proceedings against the persons who are violating the provisions of The Food and Safety Standards Act 2006.

6. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to produce the entire record pertaining to Exhibit-P5 proceedings and reports related to it."

2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as

hereunder:-

According to the petitioner, the Commissioner, Food and safety,

the 3rd respondent, has passed Exts. P1, P2 and P4 order, prohibiting

manufacture, storage, sales and distribution of coconut oil of certain

brands, periodically on the ground that coconut oil is adultered in the

said brands. But no efficacious remedies are taken by them and there

is no effective mechanism for monitoring the illegal activities. The

persons and brands who are prohibited are again entering into the

business with another brand name and continuing the same act of

adulteration. It affects the health of the general public and causes

serious diseases like cancer.

In support of the prayers sought for, petitioner has sent Ext. P3

representation dated 05.05.2018 to the Commissioner of Food Safety,

Thiruvananthapuram. As there is no response, petitioner is constrained

to prefer the instant writ petition for the reliefs stated supra.

3. On the above averments, Mr. M. G. Sreejith, learned counsel

for the petitioner, made submissions. Inviting attention of this Court to

Section 18, which deals with general principles to be followed in

administration of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006, submission

has been made that no periodical inspection is being done. Learned

counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that manufacturers

directed to be closed, surface once again with new names, and no

action is taken against them.

4. Per Contra, Mr. K. P. Harish, learned Senior Government

Pleader, submitted that in exercise of the powers conferred under the

Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006, action is being taken, as against

the perpetrators of law and periodical inspection is being conducted.

At this length of time, no adverse material has been produced, as

against the manufacturers covered under Ext. P5.

5. Representation has been made in the year 2018, praying for

strict and proper inspection and quality tests to be conducted by the

Department. Inviting attention of this Court to the reliefs sought for,

Mr. K. P. Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that

all the reliefs sought for are general in nature.

6. Learned Senior Government Pleader further submitted that if

the petitioner makes any fresh representation, pointing out specific

instances of adulteration with substantial materials, the same would be

considered, in accordance with law. For the abovesaid reasons, he

prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

on record.

8. In Ext. P3 representation dated 05.05.2018, addressed to the

Commissioner of Food Safety, Thiruvananthapuram, the 3 rd

respondent, petitioner has only sought for strict and proper

implementation, and quality tests to be conducted by the Department.

For brevity, Ext. P3 dated 05.05.2018 is extracted:-

      "No. 20/OCPCL/2017-18                              Dated 5.5.2018


      M.G.Rajamanickam IAS
      Commissioner of Food Safety,

Office of the Commissioner of Food Safety Thycaud.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695014 email:[email protected]

Sub:- Adulteration in Coconut oil Ref: Order No. B1-4581/18/CFS dated 31.5.2018

Respected Sir,

This has reference to your office order referred above on the subject cited. At the outset, we, as a manufacturer of quality coconut oil under the brand name "Onattukara Coconut oil" appreciate the efforts of your department in listing out the adulterated coconut oil in the market and thereby protecting the interest of the consumers of coconut oil. But it is an open fact that still there are many unidentified brands sold out in various markets at cheaper rates. This state of affair poses threat to the sale of quality coconut oil with higher cost of production at genuine pricing.

Though it is a welcome development that a good segment of our consumers have started realizing the injurious effects of using spurious and adulterated edible oil and prefer quality products irrespective of prices, the surveillance across the Kerala

markets may be intensified and continued so that only quality oils are available for sale.

Those who are violating the Food Safety Rules and Regulations may be brought under stringent punishment by amending the Legislation, if needed. Similarly lifting of ban of the black listed brands may be done only after strict and proper inspection and quality tests. Otherwise, this malady in the consumer sector will be continued bringing the health condition of the common man at great risk.

This is for your kind consideration and necessary action.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully, Sd/-

K.S. Alexander (Kattanam Shaji) Chairman"

9. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Government

Pleader, all the reliefs sought for in the writ petition are general in

nature, for proper and effective implementation of the provisions of

the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006, and the rules framed

thereunder. We are not inclined to issue any general directions.

In the light of the above discussion, it is always open to the

petitioner to make any fresh representation, pointing out specific

instances of adulteration by the manufacturers of coconut oil, and if

any such representation is made, the Commissioner of Food and

Safety, Thiruvananthapuram, is directed to consider the same, in

accordance with law.

Sd/-

S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE Eb

///TRUE COPY/// P. A. TO JUDGE

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42140/2018

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 31/05/2018 AS WIDE ORDER NO. B14581/18/CFS.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY ORDER DATED 30-06-2018 WIDE ORDER NO. B14581/15/CFS ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 5-5-2018.

  EXHIBIT P4         TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. B1-
                     4581/18/CFS(2) DATED 18-12-2018.
  EXHIBIT P5         THE PRESS RELEASE DATED 18-12-2018.
  EXHIBIT P5         ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P5.
  EXHIBIT P6         TRUE COPY OF NEWS PUBLISHED ON
                     19.12.2018 IN DECCAN CHRONICLE NEWS
                     PAPER.
  EXHIBIT P7         TRUE COPY OF NEWS PUBLISHED ON
                     19.12.2018 IN HINDU NEWS.