Madras High Court
C.Ravichandran vs The Commissioner on 26 February, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.3758 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD) No.3758 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.2698 and 2699 of 2025
C.Ravichandran ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department,
DMS Campus, 5th Floor,
No.359, Anna Salai,
Thenampet,
Chennai 600 006.
2.The Authorizied Officer,
Food Safety Wing,
Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
3.The Inspector of Police,
R.S.Mangalam Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 02:51:39 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.3758 of 2025
records relating to the impugned notice cum penalty order in Notice No.
1/A1/2024 dated 07.01.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the
same and consequently direct the respondents to remove the seal
forthwith put on the petitioner's small petty shop situated at Thoovar
Village, R.S.Mangalam Taluk, Ramanathapruam District based on the
petitioner's representation dated 06.02.2025.
For Petitioner :Mr.T.Veerakumar
For R1 & R2 :Mr.M.Muthumanikkam
Government Advocate
For R3 : Mr.M.Karunanithi
Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner seeks for issuance of a Certiorarified Mandamus on
the file of the second respondent in Notice No.1/A1/2024, dated
07.01.2025, to quash the same and to remove the seal forthwith put on
the petitioner's petty shop at Thoovar Village, R.S.Mangalam Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District.
2. The petitioner claims that he is a chronic kidney patient
undergoing dialysis twice a week. To eke-out for his livelihood , he has
been running a small petty shop at Thoovar Village. On 04.01.2025, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 02:51:39 pm )
police conducted a surprise search and found that the petitioner was
selling tobacco pockets, each weighing 12.6 gms and found 12 pockets
of ‘cool lip’. Consequently, an FIR was registered against the petitioner
in Crime No.6 of 2025 for the offence under Section 24(1) of the
Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003. After registering the
FIR, the second respondent passed an order on 07.01.2025, sealing the
premises and imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/- against him. Aggrieved by
the same, the petitioner made a representation on 06.02.2025. As the
same was not considered, he has approached this Court for the aforesaid
relief.
3. When the matter came up for admission,
Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, learned Government Advocate took notice for
the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government
Advocate took notice for the third respondent. They sought time for
filing counter and the time was also granted.
4. Mr.Muthumanikkam has filed a counter affidavit of the
Designated Officer, Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 02:51:39 pm )
Department, Food Safety Wing, Ramanathapuram District on 21.02.2025.
Mr.Muthumanikkam submits that the Minutes of the joint inspection
against sale of banned food products containing tobacco and nicotine,
habit forming drugs meeting by Additional Chief Secretary, Health and
Family Welfare Department on 11.06.2024 at 03.00 pm., enables the
Commissioner of Food Safety on receipt of an FIR from the Police
Officials, to impose penalty and order closure of shops. He urges it is
only on the basis of the Act, Rules and the Regulations and the Minutes
that the impugned order came to be passed.
5. Mr.Karunanithi states that a positive final report was filed by the
Police. It has been taken on file as S.T.C.No.43 of 2025 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate at Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District.
6. I heard Mr.T.Veerakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government
Advocate for the third respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 02:51:39 pm )
7. Mr.T.Veerakumar pleads that no sample was drawn from the
petitioner's shop and that the respondents had straight away sealed the
premises without following due process of law.
8. Mr.M.Muthumanikkam states that the Designated Officer has
the power to cancel or suspend the shop license or registration in terms of
Regulation 2.1.8(4) of the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and
Registration of Food Businesses), Regulations, 2011 and also has the
power to seal the premises, as he has been empowered to do so in terms
of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 r/w Food Safety and
Standards Rules, 2011.
9. Mr.T.Veerakumar relies upon a judgment of this Court in
Nagoorkani Vs. Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug
Administration, Chennai and others reported in 2024 (1) CTC 792 to
argue that the power of sealing under Rule 2.1.3.4 (i) of the Food Safety
and Standards Rules, 2011 can be resorted to only if the conditions of
that Clause are satisfied and since in this case, it has not been satisfied,
the sealing of the premises is wrong. He further states that there cannot
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 02:51:39 pm )
be a demand for compounding the offence, as the requirements of the Act
have not been satisfied.
10. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. I
havegone through the records.
11. The power to seal the premises is available to the Authority
under Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011. This is found under Rule
2.1.3.4 (i). For the purpose of exercising this power, the Food Safety
Officer should be of the opinion or should have recorded in writing that
it is not possible to comply with the requirements of Section 38 (1)(c) or
the proviso to Section 38(1) of the Act, like non availability of the Food
Business Operator.
12. In those circumstances, the Food Safety Officer may seize the
adulterant or food, which is unsafe or sub-standard or mis-branded and
may seal the premises for investigation after taking a sample of such
adulterant or food for analysis, which is required as per Section 38 of the
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Under Section 38(1)(c), the Food
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 02:51:39 pm )
Safety Officer should come to a conclusion that the sample taken from
the Food Business Operator cannot be kept in safe custody of such
Operator. He may at the time of keeping the food in the safe custody of
the food business operator also require him to execute a bond for a sum
of money equal to the value of the article with one or more sureties as he
deems fit and the Food Safety Operator should also execute a bond
accordingly. The power to seal can be exercised only when the aforesaid
requirements cannot be met with in the given facts.
13. In the facts of this case, on 04.01.2025, the police had already
seized the alleged contraband from the hands of the writ petitioner.
Therefore, the question of applying Section 38 to the Food Business
Operator in this writ petition does not arise. When the law demands an
act to be done in a particular way, it should be done in that way and in no
other way. Regulation 2.1.8(4) of the Food Safety and Standards
(Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses), Regulations, 2011 does
not empower the authority to seal the premises. It empowers the authority
to suspend the license granted to a Food Business Operator. It is not the
case of the petitioner that he was benefited with the license and therefore,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 02:51:39 pm )
the question of applying the said regulations does not arise here. When
the power to seal under 2.1.3.4(i) requires certain conditions to be
fulfilled and those conditions are not fulfilled in the facts of this case, the
second respondent erred in sealing the premises.
14. Insofar as the Minutes that has been relied upon by
Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, I have to point out that they cannot substitute or
supplant the Rules and Regulations. It is, at best, a resolution passed in a
meeting of Officers, who decide as to how the Act, Rules and
Regulations must be implemented. When the Parliamentary statute
requires that the power of sealing should be exercised in one particular
way and lays down conditions precedent to exercise that power, the
Minutes cannot enlarge that power. The executive does not possess the
power to amend the Act or enhance the powers conferred on them.
15. Mr.Muthumanikkam further pointed out that if the petitioner
pays a sum of Rs.25,000/-, the case registered against the petitioner can
be compounded. He relies upon a circular issued by the Tamil Nadu Food
Safety and Drug Administration Department in R.No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 02:51:39 pm )
8491/2019/S1/FSSA dated 04.01.2024 to press this point.
16. Mr.T.Veerakumar states that his client is willing to face the
prosecution in STC.No.43 of 2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruvadanai and is not willing to compound the offence.
17. In the light of the above discussions, the Writ Petition stands
ordered only insofar as sealing of the premises is concerned. The
respondents are directed to de-seal the premises forthwith. This order
will not stand in the way of the respondents to prosecute the petitioner in
S.T.C.No.43 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate at
Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District for the alleged offences
committed by him. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
Index :Yes / No 26.02.2025
Internet :Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
mm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 02:51:39 pm )
To
1.The Commissioner,
Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department,
DMS Campus, 5th Floor,
No.359, Anna Salai,
Thenampet,
Chennai 600 006.
2.The Authorizied Officer,
Food Safety Wing,
Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
3.The Inspector of Police,
R.S.Mangalam Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 02:51:39 pm )
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
mm
26.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 02:51:39 pm )
