IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10115 of 2008 Date of decision: 21st July, 2009 Jasbir Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HOB’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. J.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rupinder Khosla, Additional Advocate General Punjab. Notes: 1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? T.S. THAKUR, CJ. (ORAL) This petition filed in public interest prays for a direction to the respondents to take steps to stop the sale of drinks, like Soda Water, Mineral Water and the like, in case such products do not have any name, mark and contents printed on the bottle and in case the same are being sold without any license or permission. It also prays for action to be taken against those involved in selling adulterated, misbranded and such other products that are dangerous to human life. The petitioner, who happens to be a Journalist by profession, alleges that on account of inaction on the part of the authorities under the Civil Writ Petition No. 10115 of 2008 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’), a large number of products, that do not satisfy the essential requirements stipulated under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, are being freely soled in the market and that the sale and consumption of said products is a serious health hazard for the community at large. It is alleged that although the matter has been brought up before the Human Rights Commission also, yet the same has not made much of a difference forcing the petitioner to seek a direction from this Court against the respondents for appropriate action in accordance with law. Mr. Rupinder Khosla, counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that all issues and matters relating to sale of food articles and standards, that such articles and beverages must satisfy, are stipulated in the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. He further states that the Act provides for a complete machinery for action against anyone violating the said provisions and that as and when complaints are received or reports made either from the public or otherwise, about any violation of the provisions of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder, appropriate action is taken by those charged with duties of taking samples and prosecuting the culprits under the Act. He urges that the respondents and other authorities under the Act and the Rules will have no difficulty in entertaining any complaint if and when made by the petitioner for any action against any article, whether such complaint relates to the article being adulterated, misbranded or otherwise, in violation of the provisions of the Act. Appropriate action on any such complaint, in such a situation, can be taken by the competent authority, strictly in accordance with law. That statement made by Mr. Rupinder Khosla, in our opinion, should suffice. The provisions of the Act and the Rules, there is no doubt, prescribe a comprehensive machinery and process for taking of samples 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 10115 of 2008 and testing of the same and for prosecution of those found to be violating the provisions of the said Act. There is, therefore, no gainsaying that in case petitioner alleges any violation of any statutory provision, the authority concerned shall have to entertain the complaint and take appropriate action in accordance with law. In view of the statement made by Mr.Rupinder Khosla that the authorities are ready to entertain the complaint and investigate the matter in accordance with law, there is nothing for us to add to the legal position that exists on the statute. Even so, we deem it fit to dispose of this petition with a direction that the petitioner shall be free to point out any violation of the provisions of the Act or Rules framed thereunder, by any Manufacturer, Trader, Wholesaler or Retailer, to the authority competent to take action under the Act, in which event the authority so approached shall examine the complaint and take whatever action is considered necessary or permissible under law. The petition is, with the above observations, disposed of but without any order as to costs. [T. S. THAKUR] CHIEF JUSTICE [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 21, 2009 rps 3