Case Title: Nagoorkani v The Commissioner and Others
Case No: WP(MD)Nos.30871 and 30873 of 2023
Decided on: 02nd January, 2024
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.R. SWAMINATHAN
Facts of the Case
Two small-business owners discovered that their stores had been shuttered and sealed because they were purportedly selling tobacco items that were prohibited. Seeking redress, they approached the court, filing writ petitions to have the seals removed. The second respondent and a group of officials carried out an inspection on December 16, 2023, which served as the catalyst for the sealing. After the petitioners’ shops were sealed, the officials said they were in possession of tobacco items that were illegal. The respondents contended in their response to the writ petitions that designated officials are authorized by the Food Safety and Standards Act and its implementing Rules to lock and seal locations when contraband is discovered. The respondents urged a summary dismissal of the plea, arguing that the action was required to address a perceived threat to society and highlighting the serious effects on public health, especially from the sale of gutka and related items.
Legal Provisions
Section 38 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 outlines the powers of the Food Safety Officer. The court referred to Rule 2.1.3.4 of the Food Safety and Standard Rules to emphasize that the Food Safety Officer can seal premises for investigation only if compliance with the provisions of the Act is not possible. The court invoked Article 19(1)(g) which guarantees the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business to emphasize the constitutional right of the shopkeepers to carry on their business.
Issues
Whether the continued sealing of shops, based on the alleged sale of banned tobacco products, without clear justification under the Food Safety and Standards Act, violates the constitutional right to livelihood and the right to carry on business as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India?
Courts analysis and decision
The High Court underlined that although there might be a temporary basis for closing off property, it cannot be a permanent solution. The court found that the authorities lacked the authority to seal premises without a valid reason after closely examining Section 38 of the Act and Rule 2.1.3.4 of the Food Safety and Standard Rules. The Act’s provisions must be adhered to by the Rules, they cannot be superseded, the court noted. The court ordered the Food Safety and Drug Administration officials to unseal the stores, noting that the sealing in this case was unjustified and did not pass the proportionality test.
Even in cases where the original sealing of the businesses was justified, the court ruled that the stores eventually needed to be un-sealed. The ruling emphasized that sealing had an impact on the shop owners’ right to livelihood and acknowledged their fundamental freedom to conduct business under Article 19(1)(g). The court emphasized that store owners have the right to offer other goods even when they are not permitted to deal in prohibited commodities, and that de-sealing was necessary due to the disproportionate impact on their rights.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Rupika Goundla
