PEPSICO RESTAURANTS INTERNATIONAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED NEW DELHI Vs. CORPORATION OF CITY OF BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The notice dated August 31, 1995, (Annexure-C), and the Memo/Order dated September12, 1995, (Annexure-H), issued by the third respondent in No. Ho. PR. 86/95-96 cancelling the licence granted to the first petitioner to run restaurant, are sought to be quashed by the petitioners in this petition. They have further sought for a writ to strike down Sections 443 (4) and 444(2) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') as being ultra wires and unconstitutional.

(2.) The first petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act having its principal place of business at New Delhi. The second petitioner is the Director-Finance of the first petitioner-company having authority to sue and to be sued in the name of the company. The petitioners state that the first petitioner is part of an international chain of restaurants which is carrying on business at No. 4, Brigade Road Bangalore, from June 1, 1995 in pursuance of the licence issued by the second respondent as per Annexure-A. The petitioners state that the principal company also carry on business in different parts of the world in the name and style 'KFC' or 'KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN'. They serve both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food. It is further stated that each one of the restaurants of KFC International, including the first petitioner, serve fried chicken which is manufactured as per specifications and recipe proprietory to KFC International. They also state that they strictly and vigilently comply with all the applicable health standards and regulations as prescribed by, and required under, the local laws of India.

(3.) That, on August 25, 1995, at about 10-45 AM and again at 11-55 AM, the third respondent and the officers designated to collect samples under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 (for short "the PFA Act'), went to the restaurant of the petitioners and took certain samples of raw-materials and cooked food under the provisions of PFA Act and issued Form VI as required under the Rules. It is stated by the petitioners that the third respondent and his officers have also visited the restaurant on some other day and collected some other materials with which we are not concerned in this petition.