Tirupati Temple Laddu Case | Madras High Court Asks Licensing Authority To Issue Fresh Notice To Dairy Company, Give Reasonable Time To Respond

Justice N Sathish Kumar observed that the authority had issued the show cause notices for suspending the license merely on the basis of a report from a laboratory in Gujarat, without following the due provisions of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulation 2011. The court noted that the authority should have given a reasonable time to the company to respond to the show cause notice.

The court also noted that the impugned notice issued by the authority contained vague allegations and did not contain details of the specific violation committed by the dairy unit. The court reiterated the Supreme Court's remark to conduct an investigation by keeping God away from politics. The court thus asked the authority to issue a fresh notice to the company, containing details of the allegations and to give a reasonable time to the company to respond.

The court was hearing the petition filed by AR Dairy Food Private Limited, having its office at Dindigul, Tamil Nadu. The company had submitted that it was the only supplier from Tamil Nadu that was awarded the contract with the TTD to supply 10 Lakh of ghee.

The company submitted that as per the agreement, it sent four consignments on the 4th, 6th, 19th, and 27th of June which were delivered after clearance from the in-house testing laboratory of TTD, and the payments for three of the consignments were also duly disbursed.

Later, the company dispatched additional four tankers on 3^rd, 4^th and 9^th (two loads) of July but the consignments were rejected by TTD without assigning any reasons. The company submitted that on 22^nd, 23^rd and 27^th of July, TTD issued show cause notices to the company seeking an explanation as to why the contract should not be canceled and the company is blacklisted. The company submitted that TTD had relied upon the findings of lab reports by NDDB Calf Limited, based in Gujarat which was not a Food Safety Officer prescribed under the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006.

It was further submitted that though these notices were replied to, on September 20, solely on the basis of the lab report, the authority issued a show cause notice seeking an explanation as to why the company's license must not be suspended for contravention of the provisions of the Act and its regulations. The company issued its response to the show cause denying the allegations after which the impugned notice was issued.

The company argued that at the time of issuing the impugned notice, the authority had not taken steps to collect the samples from the company and send it for analysis as per the provisions of the Act. The company argued that the notice had in fact preceded the collection and analysis of the sample which was in contravention of Section 47 of the Act and Rule 2.1.2 of the Food Safety and Standard Rules, 2011.

The court thus ordered the authority to issue fresh notice and disposed of the plea accordingly.

The company was represented by Advocate K Krishna, M Sheik, Sikkandar Batcha, and Manasi K Iyer. 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 374

Case Title: AR Dairy Food Private Limited v The Central Licensing Authority – Tamil Nadu

Case No: WP (MD) 23551 of 2024