SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 19.10.2012, this Court had passed a detailed order and issued the following directions:

(2.) ALL that we can say is that the import of our order was not understood. The Committee cannot sit over the order of this Court. We had directed the Committee to identify the items, which could be termed as junk food. Thereafter, what action was to be taken was for this Court to decide and it was not for the Committee to advise this Court whether such directions can be issued or not. The Committee has also not cared to notice that the Union of India is already a party in the writ petitions. We have only sought assistance of the Committee with a view that they could assist the Court as to which items are essential items and can be permitted to be supplied in plastic packaging and which items are junk food. We had indicated some of the items which could be termed as junk food. We had given a direction to the Committee to draw up a list of items which could be termed as junk food and submit a report to this Court by 30.11.2012. The Committee has willfully disobeyed the orders of this Court on the specious plea that the necessary legal definition of junk food does not exist in current format and its regulation would be legally untenable. The Committee should have done the job which we had asked it to perform and not sat over the orders of this Court.