IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.A.No. 776 of 2008 --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.2958/2008 DATED 03/03/2008 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------- 1. K.K.RAMEES, S/O.EBRAHIM, AGED 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT K.K.HOUSE, KANNUR CITY P.O. KANNUR - 670 003, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. K.KUNHIRAMAN, S/O.AMBU, AGED 60 YEARS, R.K.FOOD PRODUCTS, KANNUR CITY P.O., KANNUR - 670 003, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE FOOD INSPECTOR, KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. LOCAL (HEALTH) AUTHORITY, KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, KANNUR. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 4. THE SECRETARY, CENTRAL COMMITTEE FOR FOOD STANDARDS, NEW DELHI. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN R3 & R4 BY CGC MR.MANOJ RAMASWAMY THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.776 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 2nd day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. The writ petition Is filed by the petitioners, inter alia, questioning the vires of Rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 ('the Rules' for short) and further to quash Ext.P1 issued by the first respondent. 2. The learned Single judge while entertaining the writ petition haD granted an interim order of stay for a period of one month. 3. When the matter was posted before the Court on 3rd March, 2008 the learned Single Judge has thought it fit to vacate the interim order granted earlier mainly on two grounds, firstly, that prosecution proceedings had been initiated against the petitioners in the year 2003 and that the Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed in No.3175 of 2005 has already been disposed of by this Court. 4. Aggrieved by the modification of the interim order, the petitioners are before us in this writ appeal. 5. The learned Single Judge has not disposed of the writ petition on merits in one way or the other. But, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has thought it fit to vacate the interim order granted earlier. Having gone through the impugned order and also the orders passed in Crl.M.C.No.3175 of 2005, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge is justified in not extending the interim order granted earlier. Therefore, we do not find any error in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. W.A.No.776 of 2008 2 6. Accordingly, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. However, we reserve liberty to the petitioners, if they so desire, to make an appropriate application for out of turn hearing before the learned Single Judge. We only request the learned Single Judge to consider the said application in accordance with law and if it is possible and permissible to give an out of turn hearing also. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE vns/DK