Godfrey Philips India Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Food Safety and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1184588
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided OnMay-03-2016
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 4953 of 2016
JudgeV.M. Kanade &Amp; M.S. Karnik
AppellantGodfrey Philips India Ltd. and Others
RespondentCommissioner of Food Safety and Others
Excerpt:
p.c. 1. issue notice before admission r/o. 28th june, 2016. learned advocate mr. g. hariharan waives service of notice for respondent no.4. learned agp waives service of notice for respondent nos.1 to 3. 2. the grievance of the petitioners is that the goods / stocks manufactured by the petitioner no.1 prior to 1st april, 2016 have been seized on the ground that the revised specified health warnings covering 85% of the front and the back panels, have not been printed on the cigarette packets. our attention is also invited to an order passed by the nagpur bench of this court, dated 25th april, 2016 passed in criminal writ petition no.313 of 2016. 3. we have perused the impugned notification. it is obvious that the said notification was passed stating that the specified health warning upto 85% on the packets was not applied prospectively from 1.4.2016 and the restriction will apply to manufacture of goods which are manufactured thereafter. it is case of the petitioners that the goods, which are seized, are manufactured before 1.4.2016. the petitioners have also stated at page 13 (in para 6.9) and at page 14 (in para 6.2) of the petition that the seized goods have been manufactured prior to 1st april, 2016, and in fact between 1st and 5th april, 2016 there was no manufacture and clearance of cigarettes made by petitioner no.1 from its various factories for the domestic market. prima-facie, therefore, case is made out for grant of ad-interim relief. ad-interim relief is, therefore, granted in terms of prayer clauses (c) (i), (ii) and (iii). it is clarified that the impugned notification is not applicable to cigarettes, which have been manufactured and packed prior to 1st april, 2016. it is further clarified that the respondents can seize the goods which do not display the specified health warning upto 85% on the packages, which are manufactured after 1st april, 2016. this is subject to further orders, that may be passed in the petition. s. o. to 28th june, 2016.
Judgment:

P.C.

1. Issue notice before admission R/o. 28th June, 2016. Learned advocate Mr. G. Hariharan waives service of notice for Respondent No.4. Learned AGP waives service of notice for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. The grievance of the Petitioners is that the goods / stocks manufactured by the Petitioner No.1 prior to 1st April, 2016 have been seized on the ground that the revised specified health warnings covering 85% of the front and the back panels, have not been printed on the cigarette packets. Our attention is also invited to an order passed by the Nagpur Bench of this Court, dated 25th April, 2016 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.313 of 2016.

3. We have perused the impugned notification. It is obvious that the said notification was passed stating that the specified health warning upto 85% on the packets was not applied prospectively from 1.4.2016 and the restriction will apply to manufacture of goods which are manufactured thereafter. It is case of the Petitioners that the goods, which are seized, are manufactured before 1.4.2016. The Petitioners have also stated at page 13 (in para 6.9) and at page 14 (in para 6.2) of the petition that the seized goods have been manufactured prior to 1st April, 2016, and in fact between 1st and 5th April, 2016 there was no manufacture and clearance of cigarettes made by Petitioner No.1 from its various factories for the domestic market. Prima-facie, therefore, case is made out for grant of ad-interim relief. Ad-interim relief is, therefore, granted in terms of prayer clauses (c) (i), (ii) and (iii). It is clarified that the impugned notification is not applicable to cigarettes, which have been manufactured and packed prior to 1st April, 2016. It is further clarified that the Respondents can seize the goods which do not display the specified health warning upto 85% on the packages, which are manufactured after 1st April, 2016. This is subject to further orders, that may be passed in the petition. S. O. to 28th June, 2016.