IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.07.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S. NAGAMUTHU W.P.No.19082 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.2 & 3 of 2007 M/s.Selvam Coffee & Tea Co. Rep. by its Managing Partner, J.Udayakumar, No.296, Ramachandra Nagar, Bye-Pass Main Road, Madurai – 16. .. Petitioner -Vs.- The Assistant Director of Tea Development, Tea Board, Shelwood Club Road, Coonoor – 643 101, The Nilgiris. .. Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorari calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in his proceedings No.6(280)/TMCO/CNR/2005/669 dated 18.05.2007 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondent : Mr.S.Srinivasan ORDER Though the miscellaneous petition is listed today, by consent of the learned counsel for both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2.The petitioner is a partnership firm represented by its Managing Partner. The said partnership firm is dealing in coffee and tea in and around Madurai. On 07.05.2007, one of the officials of the respondent took samples from the tea dust for analysis from the company of the petitioner on the allegation that the same was kept in violation of Clause 16(3) of Tea Waste (Control) Order, 1959. On examination by an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Analyst, the same has been found not conforming to the standards for ‘tea’ as laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Therefore, the respondent by his proceedings in No. 6(280)/ TMCO/CNR/2005/669 dated 18.05.2007 has directed the petitioner to destroy the tea waste weighing 25 kgs stored in the premises of the petitioner in the presence of Officers of Tea Board at Coonoor. The notice further directs the petitioner to report compliance of the direction within 15 days. The petitioner challenges the said order in this writ petition. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that ‘tea’ is not a foodstuff as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Samuel v. Union of India (AIR 2004 SC 218) and so the impugned order is not sustainable under law. 4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the law laid down in the said judgment has got no application to the facts of the present case. He would rely on a judgment of a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Food Inspector, Palghat Municipality v. P.Subramonian (1987 Crl. L.J.333). According to him, tea is a food article as defined in Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and therefore, the impugned order is perfectly valid under law. 5.I have considered the rival submissions. 6.The Tea Act, 1953 defines the term "tea" as follows:- "(n)"tea" means the plant Camellia Sinensis (L) O.Kuntze as well as all varieties of the prodcut known commercially as tea made from the leaves of the plant Camelia Sinensis (L) O.Kuntze including green tea;" 7.In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 30 of the Tea Act, the Central Government has issued Tea Waste (Control) Order, 1959. Clause 2(f) of the said Control order, defines the term "tea waste’ as follows:- "2(f) "tea waste" means tea sweepings, tea fluff, tea fibre or tea stalks or any article purporting to be tea which does not conform to the specification for tea laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954 (37 of 1954) but does not include green tea or green tea stalks." 8.A plain reading of the above provisions would go to establish that tea waste should conform to the specification for tea laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Section 2 (v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act defines the term "food" as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "(v) "food" means any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water and includes-" 9.There can be no doubt that tea waste is used for human consumption by making liquid tea. Therefore, there cannot be any hesitation to hold that tea is an article which falls within the definition of food as found in Section 2(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Under Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, tea has been included as one of the food articles and it further provides that, the flavoured tea product shall conform to the following requirement in which all the figures given are expressed on the basis of the material oven-dried at 103+2•C. (a) Tota ash (m/m) Not less than 4.0 per cent and not more than 8.0 per cent (b)Water-soluble ash Not less than 45.0 per cent of total ash (c)Alkalinity of water- Not less than 1.0 per cent and soluble ash expressed as not more than 3.0 per cent. KOH (m/m) (d)Acid-insoluble ash (m/m) Not more than 1.0 per cent (e)Water-extract (m/m) Not less than 32.0 per cent (f)Crude fibre (m/m) Not more than 16.5 per cent 10.A conjoint reading of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 and the Tea Act would go to establish that the tea waste is a food article which should conform to the standards prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Since in this case, according to the Analyst, the tea waste seized from the petitioner’s company does not conform to the said standards, in exercise of power conferred under the tea act, the respondent has issued the impugned order directing the petitioner to destroy the tea waste, in which I do not find any illegality or infirmity. 11.Now, let me analyse the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Samuel v. Union of India (cited supra). In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Articles (Prescription of Standards) Orders (1977). The Tamil Nadu Scheduled Articles (Prescription of Standards) Orders (1977) prescribes for standards in respect of tea. The validity of the said Order in its application to tea was challenged. The main challenge was on the ground https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that tea is not an essential commodity as defined in Essential Commodities Act and therefore, it is beyond the scope of the power of the Central Government to prescribe a standard for ‘tea’ which is not an essential commodity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to the definition in the Essential Commodities Act, for the term "essential Commodities" has held as follows:- "12.We would first examine whether ‘tea’ is a foodstuff’. The term ‘foodstuff’ (including edible oilseeds and oils) is not defined by the EC Act. Resort shall have to be had to the meaning of the term ‘foodstuff’ in common parlance, in the commercial world and amongst the consumers – where tea is sold, purchased and consumed. ‘Foodstuffs’ and ‘tea’ are commonly sold and bought in the market and are consumer items. We will have to see whether ‘tea’ is considered a ‘foodstuff’ in the market frequented by its dealers and consumers. 13.let us first have the opinion of lexicographers. "When a word is not defined in the Act itself, it is permissible to refer to dictionaries to find out the general sense in which that word is understood in common parlance......." 12.Since the term "food" is not defined in the Essential Commodities Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had to give meaning to the term "food" in the context of the Essential Commodities Act on the basis of the dictionary meaning, as understood in common parlance by consumers. Since in common parlance tea is not known as a foodstuff, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it was beyond the scope of the power of the Central Government to prescribe standard for tea and on that score, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Articles (Prescription of Standards) Orders (1977) in its application to tea. But in so far as the Tea Act is concerned, as extracted above, the term "tea" has been defined and under the Tea Waste (Control) Order, 1959, tea waste has been again defined. 13.According to the said definition, tea waste should conform to the standards prescribed for tea under the Food Adulteration Act. Under the Food Adulteration Act, tea has been defined as a ‘food’ and standard has been prescribed. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra has got no application to the facts of the present case at all. In so far as the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Tea Act are concerned, tea is a food under these two enactments. In view of the above, I find no merit in the writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14.In the result, the writ petition fails and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar jbm To The Assistant Director of Tea Development, Tea Board, Shelwood Club Road, Coonoor – 643 101, The Nilgiris. 1 cc To Mr.S.Srinivasan, Advocate, SR.36821. 1 cc To Mr.C.Prakasam, Advocate, SR.36788. W.P.No.19082 of 2007 PUR(CO) RVL 22.07.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/