M/s.Selvam Coffee & Tea Co.Rep. by its Managing Partner v. The Assistant Director of Tea Development

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.07.2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S. NAGAMUTHUW.P.No.19082 of 2007 andM.P.Nos.2 & 3 of 2007M/s.Selvam Coffee & Tea Co.Rep. by its Managing Partner,J.Udayakumar,No.296, Ramachandra Nagar,Bye-Pass Main Road,Madurai – 16. .. Petitioner-Vs.-The Assistant Director of Tea Development,Tea Board,Shelwood Club Road,Coonoor – 643 101,The Nilgiris. .. RespondentPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorari calling for the entirerecords relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in hisproceedings No.6(280)/TMCO/CNR/2005/669 dated 18.05.2007 and quash thesame. For Petitioner : Mr.C.PrakasamFor Respondent : Mr.S.SrinivasanORDERThough the miscellaneous petition is listed today, by consent ofthe learned counsel for both sides, the writ petition itself is taken upfor final disposal.2.The petitioner is a partnership firm represented by its ManagingPartner. The said partnership firm is dealing in coffee and tea in andaround Madurai. On 07.05.2007, one of the officials of the respondenttook samples from the tea dust for analysis from the company of thepetitioner on the allegation that the same was kept in violation ofClause 16(3) of Tea Waste (Control) Order, 1959. On examination by an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Analyst, the same has been found not conforming to the standards for‘tea’ as laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.Therefore, the respondent by his proceedings in No. 6(280)/TMCO/CNR/2005/669 dated 18.05.2007 has directed the petitioner todestroy the tea waste weighing 25 kgs stored in the premises of thepetitioner in the presence of Officers of Tea Board at Coonoor. Thenotice further directs the petitioner to report compliance of thedirection within 15 days. The petitioner challenges the said order inthis writ petition.3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that ‘tea’is not a foodstuff as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Samuel v.Union of India (AIR 2004 SC 218) and so the impugned order is notsustainable under law.4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submitthat the law laid down in the said judgment has got no application tothe facts of the present case. He would rely on a judgment of a DivisionBench of Kerala High Court in Food Inspector, Palghat Municipality v.P.Subramonian (1987 Crl. L.J.333). According to him, tea is a foodarticle as defined in Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and therefore,the impugned order is perfectly valid under law.5.I have considered the rival submissions. 6.The Tea Act, 1953 defines the term "tea" as follows:-"(n)"tea" means the plant Camellia Sinensis(L) O.Kuntze as well as all varieties of the prodcutknown commercially as tea made from the leaves of theplant Camelia Sinensis (L) O.Kuntze including greentea;"7.In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-sections (3) and (5)of Section 30 of the Tea Act, the Central Government has issued TeaWaste (Control) Order, 1959. Clause 2(f) of the said Control order,defines the term "tea waste’ as follows:-"2(f) "tea waste" means tea sweepings, teafluff, tea fibre or tea stalks or any articlepurporting to be tea which does not conform to thespecification for tea laid down under the Preventionof Food Adulteration Act. 1954 (37 of 1954) but doesnot include green tea or green tea stalks."8.A plain reading of the above provisions would go to establishthat tea waste should conform to the specification for tea laid downunder the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Section 2 (v) of thePrevention of Food Adulteration Act defines the term "food" as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "(v) "food" means any article used as food ordrink for human consumption other than drugs andwater and includes-"9.There can be no doubt that tea waste is used for humanconsumption by making liquid tea. Therefore, there cannot be anyhesitation to hold that tea is an article which falls within thedefinition of food as found in Section 2(v) of the Prevention of FoodAdulteration Act. Under Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food AdulterationRules, 1955, tea has been included as one of the food articles and itfurther provides that, the flavoured tea product shall conform to thefollowing requirement in which all the figures given are expressed onthe basis of the material oven-dried at 103+2•C.(a) Tota ash (m/m)Not less than 4.0 per cent andnot more than 8.0 per cent(b)Water-soluble ashNot less than 45.0 per cent oftotal ash(c)Alkalinity of water-Not less than 1.0 per cent andsoluble ash expressed asnot more than 3.0 per cent.KOH (m/m)(d)Acid-insoluble ash (m/m)Not more than 1.0 per cent(e)Water-extract (m/m)Not less than 32.0 per cent(f)Crude fibre (m/m)Not more than 16.5 per cent10.A conjoint reading of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 and the Tea Act would goto establish that the tea waste is a food article which should conformto the standards prescribed under the Prevention of Food AdulterationRules. Since in this case, according to the Analyst, the tea wasteseized from the petitioner’s company does not conform to the saidstandards, in exercise of power conferred under the tea act, therespondent has issued the impugned order directing the petitioner todestroy the tea waste, in which I do not find any illegality orinfirmity.11.Now, let me analyse the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin S.Samuel v. Union of India (cited supra). In that case, the Hon'bleSupreme Court had an occasion to deal with the Tamil Nadu ScheduledArticles (Prescription of Standards) Orders (1977). The Tamil NaduScheduled Articles (Prescription of Standards) Orders (1977) prescribesfor standards in respect of tea. The validity of the said Order in itsapplication to tea was challenged. The main challenge was on the ground https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that tea is not an essential commodity as defined in EssentialCommodities Act and therefore, it is beyond the scope of the power ofthe Central Government to prescribe a standard for ‘tea’ which is not anessential commodity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to thedefinition in the Essential Commodities Act, for the term "essentialCommodities" has held as follows:-"12.We would first examine whether ‘tea’ is afoodstuff’. The term ‘foodstuff’ (including edibleoilseeds and oils) is not defined by the EC Act.Resort shall have to be had to the meaning of theterm ‘foodstuff’ in common parlance, in thecommercial world and amongst the consumers – wheretea is sold, purchased and consumed. ‘Foodstuffs’and ‘tea’ are commonly sold and bought in the marketand are consumer items. We will have to see whether‘tea’ is considered a ‘foodstuff’ in the marketfrequented by its dealers and consumers. 13.let us first have the opinion oflexicographers. "When a word is not defined in theAct itself, it is permissible to refer todictionaries to find out the general sense in whichthat word is understood in common parlance......."12.Since the term "food" is not defined in the EssentialCommodities Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had to give meaning to theterm "food" in the context of the Essential Commodities Act on the basisof the dictionary meaning, as understood in common parlance byconsumers. Since in common parlance tea is not known as a foodstuff, theHon'ble Supreme Court has held that it was beyond the scope of the powerof the Central Government to prescribe standard for tea and on thatscore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the Tamil Nadu ScheduledArticles (Prescription of Standards) Orders (1977) in its application totea. But in so far as the Tea Act is concerned, as extracted above, theterm "tea" has been defined and under the Tea Waste (Control) Order,1959, tea waste has been again defined. 13.According to the said definition, tea waste should conform tothe standards prescribed for tea under the Food Adulteration Act. Underthe Food Adulteration Act, tea has been defined as a ‘food’ and standardhas been prescribed. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt cited supra has got no application to the facts of the presentcase at all. In so far as the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act andTea Act are concerned, tea is a food under these two enactments. In viewof the above, I find no merit in the writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14.In the result, the writ petition fails and accordingly the sameis dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitionis closed. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarjbmToThe Assistant Director of Tea Development,Tea Board, Shelwood Club Road,Coonoor – 643 101,The Nilgiris.1 cc To Mr.S.Srinivasan, Advocate, SR.36821.1 cc To Mr.C.Prakasam, Advocate, SR.36788.W.P.No.19082 of 2007 PUR(CO)RVL 22.07.2008