2016 (9) TMI 1371 - HC - Indian Laws

Parameters laid down for testing of samples under the Food Safety Regulations - validity of test report - whether rejection report is the outcome of non-application of mind? - provision of testing of aluminium content - Held that - The submission made is not well founded for the reason that the parameters laid down for testing of samples under the Food Safety Regulations could at best considered as illustrative and general parameters and in the process of testing if the Scientific Officer comes to know that there are certain other components in the samples then he has the duty to report the same in his report. This is what precisely the third respondent has done and submitted the report. The product which is imported by the petitioner is Cocoa Powder which is one of the main ingredient in the manufacture of Chocolates and confectionery items which is being done by the petitioner and they are one of the major players in the market. It cannot be disputed that 90% of the consumers of these confectionery items and chocolates are young children. Therefore utmost care and caution should be exercises while testing such food products. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot examine the validity of test report when there are no other malafides alleged against the Officers who have done the testing. Thus merely because the third respondent has reported the presence of heavy metal-Aluminium in the samples that by itself cannot vitiate the report by stating that he ought not to have examined the metal content in the samples as the general parameters do not provide for the same. In fact even as per the general parameters in Regulation 2.11.6 of Food Safety & Standards (Food Product Standards & Food Additives) Regulations 2011 metal contaminants can be examined for contents of contaminated metals like Lead Copper Arsenic Mercury Methyl Mercury Tin Zinc Cadmium. Therefore merely because of non-mentioning of the Aluminium as one of the metal contaminant cannot be a reason to vitiate the impugned test report. Thus the petitioner has not made out any case for interference.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeks to quash the rejection report of Central Food Laboratory due to non-conformance with standards. Petitioner challenges the rejection based on the presence of certain materials in the samples. The main argument is the absence of provisions for testing aluminum content in the parameters laid down for food sample testing.

Analysis:

1. Quashing of Rejection Report: The petitioner requested a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the rejection report issued by the Central Food Laboratory due to non-conformance with standards. The report highlighted the presence of "Ash Insoluble in dil HCL" and "heavy metal-Aluminium" exceeding prescribed limits, rendering the sample sub-standard under the FSS Act, 2006.

2. Challenges by Petitioner: The petitioner contested the rejection based on the excessive Alkalinity of total ash in the samples, which exceeded the permissible limit. The petitioner sought re-testing before the Central Laboratory, arguing that the parameters for testing food samples did not include provisions for testing aluminum content.

3. Parameters for Testing: The petitioner's counsel argued that the rejection report was flawed due to the absence of provisions for testing aluminum content in the parameters laid down for food sample testing. However, the court emphasized that the parameters were illustrative and general, and the Scientific Officer had the duty to report any other components found during testing.

4. Justification for Testing: The court highlighted the importance of thorough testing for food products, especially those consumed by young children, like the Cocoa Powder imported by the petitioner for manufacturing chocolates and confectionery items. The court emphasized the need for caution and care in testing such products to ensure consumer safety.

5. Judicial Review: The court clarified that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it could not question the validity of a test report unless malafides were alleged against the testing officers. The court stated that the presence of "heavy metal-Aluminium" in the samples, even though not explicitly listed in the general parameters, did not invalidate the report as other metal contaminants were included in the testing parameters.

6. Dismissal of Writ Petition: Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for interference. The judgment concluded with the dismissal of the petition without costs, and the closure of the connected miscellaneous petition.