THUTHUKUDI THANPADU UPPU ETTRUMATHI VIVAPARIGAL SANGAM TUTICORIN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVT PUBLIC HEALTH DEPT MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ Appeals arise out of writ petitions, W.P. Nos. 30565 and 30566 of 1994 which along with writ petitions, W.P. Nos. 20443,21383 21485 of 1994 and 488 of 1995 were dealt with by a common order by learned Judge and all the writ petitions were dismissed on 10-10-1995. All these writ petitions challenge the validity of the Notification No. VI(2)/206/94 dated: 29-8-1994 issued by the second respondent under Clause (iv) of Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (Central Act 37 1954) (hereinafter called 'the Act'). An amendment was issued to this notification in the Amendment Notification No. VI(2) 13(a)/95 dated: 12-1-1995, by limiting the period of the ban on sale of edible common salt for the period upto 31-12-1999. Learned Judge has set out the pleadings elaborately as well as the arguments advanced before him and has considered the case in all the aspects and from all the angles projeted by the petitioners and found that there was absolutely nothing illegal about the notification banning the sale of edible common salt other than iodised salt for the period upto 31-12-1999. Before us, we have only two appeals filed by the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 30565 and 30566 of 1994. These two petitioners represent these small manufacturers in and around Tuticorin and Tiruchendur, apparently on the belt area between Tuticorin and Tiruchendu.

(2.) Though the learned Judge has set out the pleadings of all the petitioners, we will briefly refer to the case as put forward by the appellants herein.

(3.) The members of the appellants society claim to be manufacturers of common salt and holding small extent of Lands ranging from one to nine acres. They set out the method of production of salt by letting out saline water either from see or from water bailed from borewella over clay spread pans and allowed to crystalise. Thereafter the crystalised salt is scrapped and made ready for sale. It is then pointed out that the scheme introduced by the Government of India for universal iodisation was based on certain disorders among the citizens due to iodine deficiency. Primarily the areas prone to iodine deficiency were around the hill regions. That is precisely the reason why an earlier notification, issued on 5-5-1993 banned the sale of edible common salt other than or iodised common salt in the Districts of Nilgiris and Tiruchirapalli which were found endemic and to iodine deficiency disorders. Similarly it was found that in the Himalayan Region, the majority of population were found affected by Doitre Endemic disease. The contention of the petitioners is that the impugned notifications violate the freedom of trade and business guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. They also contend that the act under which the notifications were issued does not provide for a total ban of common salt. They complain about the lack of survey in all the Districts of Tamil Nadu and the survey con- cted by the respondents had only disclosed that apart from Tiruchirapalli and Nilgiris about 15 to 30 percentage of the population were found to be suffering from iodine deficiency disorders in the Districts of Dharmapuri, Madurai and Salem. They point out that there is no complete ban in the other States of India. It is next contended that salt is not the only source by which iodine deficiency can be eradicated. There are other vegetables and articles of food which also contain iodine and therefore, it was not necessary to choose common salt as the only food article to be iodised. It was also contended that common salt is not intended for only human consumption, there are various other use of common salt like preservation of fish, use in tanning and fertilizer industry. It is significant to notice that both the appellants had pleaded similar grounds and similar facts for challenging the notification.