HARIPRIYA TRADERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These batch of writ petitions are filed by importers of raw betel nuts (arecanuts), aggrieved by detention of imported betel nuts at Cochin Port by Authorised Officer for Cochin Seaport and Airport by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. The Authorised Officer, after taking the samples, rejected the samples on the ground that samples do not conform to the standards specified under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short, the "FSS Act"). Petitioners challenge the said action on two grounds; firstly, with respect to the definition accorded to "food" under Section 3(1) of the FSS Act and; secondly, on the ground that there is no prescription for analysing the standard of betel nuts under the FSS Act. By interim orders of this Court in all these matters, goods were directed to be released to the respective petitioners. Food Safety and Standards Authority filed counter-affidavits in some of the matters and also filed memos for adopting counter in other matters. It is contended by the Food Safety and Standards Authority that betel nuts are "food" and they have the power to retain such goods which are imported and found unfit for human consumption. The learned counsel for the Food Safety and Standards Authority also adverted to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India and Others, 2014 AIR(SC) 49 wherein paras. 21 and 22 reads as follows:

(2.) The Food Safety and Standards Act defines food under Section 3(j) as follows:

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Gokul Refoils Solvents Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others ,, submits that betel nut is not "food" as defined under Section 3(j) of the FSS Act. The above case is referred to importing crude palm oil. It is held in the above case as follows: