Crane Betel Nut-powder Works vs Govt. of A.P. and Others

Sardar Ali Khan, J.—M/s. Crane Betel Nut Powder Works, Sampath Nagar, Guntur-1 is the petitioner herein. The said Unit is engaged in the Manufacture of Crane Betel Nut Powder. It is stated that they are carrying on this business from a long time. Further more, it is the contention of the petitioner-company that Betel Nut Powder is made by mixing up saccharin also to the product. This product is packed in small and big packets and is marked under the emblem of "Crane Betel Nut Powder". It is admitted that there is an admixture of admixure of Saccharin in the product which is manufactured by the petitioner-company and which is the subject matter of this writ petition. The petitioner-company asserts their right to do business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and submits that the Government cannot stop them from doing their business by imposing conditions and launching criminal prosecution which are not warranted by any law.

It would be appropriate to refer, at this juncture itself, to the vast expanse of the prayer in this Writ Petition which is for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction (a) declaring that the admixture of saccharin in Crane Betel Nut Power is not under a blanket bar under Rule 47 with Appendix-B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955; (b) declaring that the petitioner-company is having a fundamental right to do business by admixing Saccharin in Crane Betel Nut Powder in accordance with. Rule 47 with Appendix-B of the aforesaid Rules and (c) restraining the respondents herein from interfering with the petitioner''s business by taking samples of Crane Betel Nut Powder in the name of admixture of Saccharin in the said Crane Betel Nut Powder.

It is significant to note that the petitioner-company is asking for a declaration stating that there is no blanket bar under Rule 47 with Appendix-B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and for a further declaration that the petitioner-company is having a fundamental right to do business by admixing Saccharin in Crane Betel Nut Powder. The petitioner-company also prays that the respondents shall be restrained from interfering with their business by taking samples of Crane Betel Nut Powder in the name of Admixture of Saccharin. It is obvious that the wide sweep of the prayer made in this writ petition itself is not maintainable. While we are exercising jurisdiction vested in us under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a blanket declaration in favour of the petitioner thereby giving them a free hand in the manufacture of betel nut powder even with the admixture of saccharin cannot be granted. Muchless it could be said that there can be an order restrain the respondents from taking samples of the Crane Betel Nut Powder. In this connection it would be necessary to refer to Rule 44(g) and Rule 47 and A.07.10 of Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which are in the following terms:-

"44. Sale of certain admixtures prohibited:-

Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 43 no person shall, either by himself or by any servant or a gent sell-

XX XX XX (g) any article of food which contains any artificial sweetener which such artificial sweetener is permitted in accordance with the standard laid down in Appendix-B.

XX XX XX Rule-47: "Addition of artificial sweetener to be mentioned on the label:

Saccharin or any other artificial sweetener shall not be added to any article of food, except where the addition of such artificial sweetener is permitted in accordance with the standards laid down in Appendix ''B'' and where any artificial sweetener added to any food, the container of such food shall be labelled with an adhesive declaratory label which shall be in the form given below:

"This... (name of food) contains an admixture of ..... (name of the artificial sweetener).

Clause A.07.10 of Appendix ''B'' is in the following terms:-

"A.07.10-Saccharin Sodium commonly known as soluble Saccharin having an empirical formula as-C7 H4 HNa 03 S. 2H20 and molecular weight as 241.2 shall be the material which is soluble at 20� C in 1.5 parts of water and 50 parts of alcohol (95 per cent); and shall contain not less than 98.0 per cent and more than the equivalent of 140.5 per cent of C7 H4 HSNa calculated with reference to the substance dried to constant weight at 105� C, assay being carried out as presented in Indian Pharmacopoeia. It shall not contain more than 2P p.m. of arsenic and 10p.p.m. of lead. The melting point of Saccharin isolated from the material as per Indian Pharmacopeia method, shall be between 22� C and 23� C. The loss on drying of the material at 105� C shall not be less than 12.0 per cent and not more than 16.0 per cent of its weight.

The material shall satisfy the tests of identification and shall conform to the limit tests for free acid or alkali ammonium compounds and pafasulpha moylbenzoate as mentioned in the Indian Pharmacoeia."

The object of quoting these provisions of law with regard to the mixture of Saccharin with the betel nut powder is to highlight the fact that even if mixing of soluble Saccharin is permitted under law, it should be in accordance with the terms and conditions which have been laid in Clause A-07.10 of Appendix-B.

Another interesting feature of the case is that it is no-where stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that actually prosecutions have been launched against the petitioner for the violation of these rules. It is, therefore, obvious of an universal nature in anticipation of something untoward happening to them if they infringe the provisions of Rules 44, 47 of Clause A.07.10 of Appendix-B. The law is well-settled on the point that no relief could be granted in a Writ Petition unless the petitioner makes out a case that such a relief is warranted by the circumstances of the case. Any general declaration of the nature prayed for by the petitioner would travel beyond the scope of the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner-company obviously has not come with any specific incident of grievance showing that prosecution has been launched against them and yet they are asking for a declaration to be used as a shield by them against possible violations which may come to light in future.

Mr. K.R.K. Varaprasad, learned counsel for the petitioner-company has cited before us a judgment of learned single Judge (G. Ramanujulu Naidu, J) (as he then was in Crl. M.P.1569/84 dated 18-11-1985 wherein the prosecution launched against the unit was quashed. Further more, it is to be noted that the judgment of Division Bench of this-court in W.P. Nos. 11940/85 and batch dated 16th June, 1986, also runs on the same lines. The reasoning in the above two judgments may be correct but the same is not applicable to this case as there is no prosecution launched against the petitioner-company in this matter and all that is prayed for is a series of general declarations in favour of the petitioner.

Mr. K.R.K. Varaprasad, learned counsel for the petitioner has been at pains to submit that if any prosecution are launched against the petitioner-company, if they may be allowed to have recourse to such remedies as are available to them in accordance with law. We do not find any reason to deny this request of the petitioner and we make an observation that if any prosecutions are launched against the petitioner-company, it may be open them to have recourse to such remedies as are available to them under law.

In view of the above discussion, we have come to the inescapable conclusion that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner-company cannot be given in this writ petition. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed, but, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 150/-.