Monday, April 09, 2012 08:00 IST
Challenging the constitutional validity of the provision of the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA 2006), Nagpur-based Vidarbha Taxpayers Association (VTA) and Nagpur Residential Hotels Association (NRHA) have filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) with the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court.
The PIL has been filed against the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, (FSSAI), the union ministry of health and family welfare, ministry of law & justice, legislative department, and the Food and Drug Administration, Maharashtra.
Calling certain provision of the FSSA unconstitutional, the PIL also challenges the legality, validity and propriety of the Regulation No. 2.1.2 of the Food Safety & Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Business) Regulations, 2011.
According to the petition filed by Tejinder Singh Renu, secretary, VTA and NHRA, the provision engrafted in the FSS Act appear to harm even innocent traders and others. It said that the law is passed without even consulting the traders, merchants, businessmen, etc., concerned in this field. “It is good to have such a law but at the same time it is very difficult to imagine that such a law can be implemented in a most haphazard manner or in a haste shutting eyes to the pragmatic practices and the practices of food business prevalent in India,” said the petition.
The PIL has accused the Authority of enforcing a law which is immensely vague. It is a settled democratic principle that, every wing of the government be it the executive, the legislature or the judiciary has to separate grain from chaff in respect of issues before it. While drafting a law like the FSS Act, 2006, the target persons must be the one who are engrossed in food adulteration and black-marketing. However, in catching hold of such persons, the FSS Act, 2006, sounds to be a good prospect but, it may cause more harm than good by implementing the penal, harsh and draconian provision even against the bona-fide food business operators due to its immense vagueness, the petitioners said.
Challenging the constitutional validity of the provision of the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA 2006), Nagpur-based Vidarbha Taxpayers Association (VTA) and Nagpur Residential Hotels Association (NRHA) have filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) with the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court.
The PIL has been filed against the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, (FSSAI), the union ministry of health and family welfare, ministry of law & justice, legislative department, and the Food and Drug Administration, Maharashtra.Calling certain provision of the FSSA unconstitutional, the PIL also challenges the legality, validity and propriety of the Regulation No. 2.1.2 of the Food Safety & Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Business) Regulations, 2011.
According to the petition filed by Tejinder Singh Renu, secretary, VTA and NHRA, the provision engrafted in the FSS Act appear to harm even innocent traders and others. It said that the law is passed without even consulting the traders, merchants, businessmen, etc., concerned in this field. “It is good to have such a law but at the same time it is very difficult to imagine that such a law can be implemented in a most haphazard manner or in a haste shutting eyes to the pragmatic practices and the practices of food business prevalent in India,” said the petition.
The PIL has accused the Authority of enforcing a law which is immensely vague. It is a settled democratic principle that, every wing of the government be it the executive, the legislature or the judiciary has to separate grain from chaff in respect of issues before it. While drafting a law like the FSS Act, 2006, the target persons must be the one who are engrossed in food adulteration and black-marketing. However, in catching hold of such persons, the FSS Act, 2006, sounds to be a good prospect but, it may cause more harm than good by implementing the penal, harsh and draconian provision even against the bona-fide food business operators due to its immense vagueness, the petitioners said.
No comments:
Post a Comment