LexBISHAMBAR NATH AND OTHERS versus THE AGRA NAGAR MAHAPALIKA AGRA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
777
BISHAMBAR NATH AND OTHERS
l'
TIJE AGRA NAGAR MAHAP ALlKA AGRA AND ANO;HER
March 28, 1973
·
[J. M. $HELAT, ACTING C.J., 5. N. DWIVEDI AND
B
.
Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] .
u.P. Municipalities Act, Sec. 244, "An article of food or drink
apptars to be intended for tire conswnptio1r of man,"-Un{it condition
._
fl/ foodstuff i~ to ~e determine~ by . an objccth·e
test and not
011
c
subjective salls/actlOii of the mspectmg o[Jicer-Whethl!r the order re·
gu/ating sale of alia for animal consumplioli ~·a/id undu Sec. 244.
The appellant purchased certain quantity of wheat flour from the
~Jilitary Dairy Farm, Agra. which was declared
unfit for human con-
sumption. He exposed it for sale with a sign-board that the wheat flour
11'015 uniit for human consumption.
The appellant wanted to sell it for
lchi or for manure or for animal consumption.
On complaint by the
second respondent, the District l\(agistrate, Agra, passed an order pro-
D hibiting the sale umler section 144 of the Cr. P.C. The appellant was
also prosecuted under U.P. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, but
was acquitted: The appellant applied to the Corporation for permission
to sell the wheat flour.
On September !7, !945, Respondent No. 1 passed
~n order under section 44 of the U.P. Municipalities Act permitting the
disposal of the flour under certain conditions.
On representation made
lty the appellant, Respondent No. 1 passed a second order on October_ 8,
19~5. int~r alia, directing that tile flour should not be s~ld for f~edm~
E
aJJ~J is kept for dairy purposes. The appellant filed. a sm.t fo: damage,
az;~r?>t the respondents for stopping the sale and for IIDJ?OSID,!l' illegal res-
tnctJo:JS elfcc:tively preventing the s:J!e, resulting in dctenoratt~n of
t~c
nour and Ia<..~ of profit,.
The trial
court • decreed . the swt but tnc
All;,habad High Court set it aside.
On app.:al to th1s Court, the ques·
1'0:1 for consideration wa5 whether the order purported to be passcJ by
ropondt:llt no. 1 under section 2-U was a valid order, and whether res-
•. PoJL!ent No. 1 was liable to pay damages.
1. HElD~ The phrase, "an article of foou or drink appea~s t!-> b~a:~=
f~~d fo• con~umption of man," does not conte~ptate subJt'C{;~~ 5ellcr
,11ct1011 of the inspecting officer :u held by t.he Htgll Court:
Hi~ in-
~~tulrJ i.nll:nJ tn sell nn article of food for human consun;;~~iJence as a
r~,.'on It <in ohjective fact which shoulJ. be pro~ ny,;ucis intent.kd fc>t
{;
hu,;~nJble rn:.n will believe that lh>! -:~rt,de of f
' 111
40 con\lllnption.
(781 11
~ .
f
huntan con~umption. It
~
~Iron 244(1) contempbte' a direct safe •'f·IJ
indirect sal~ for
hum not contemplate, a~ the I ligh Court ha~ ~~ ·t' th~ nour is sold for
ftc,/0 con~umption. The Ili!:h Court hdd t_ ~ 1 n it would be a sale
for
1h~ OJih.:h animal~ or animal'S who~e lles~JS n~tt\;r;:nd prevention or
11
l~le roman consumptio:1.
The legi~lature \. 1 J by sub-section ( 1) 0
St<: ,or con\umption of animal~ to be regu a.: .
'-44. f7BIHJ
,
~~~ ~ppeal was partly
·· l1~sl snmg the quantum
P. CIJ73
aii.Jwed and remanded
0 ( Jamagi:S.
to the High Court for
,·
.... ,..-·
.i
I I
J
778
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 3 S.C,R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : . Civil Appeal No. 1809 of
J 967.
Appeal by certificate from the judgment and decree dated May
25, 1962 of the Allahabad High Court in Appeal No. 328 of 1950.
C. K. Daphtary and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellants.
R. N. Sharma and C. P. Lal, for the respond~n<ts.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DWIVEDI, J.-The appellants instituted a suit against the res~
pondents for recovery of Rs. 34,000 as damages.
The suit wus
grounded on tortious liabtility. The trial coun decreed the suit,
but the High, Court of Allahabad reversed the decree and dismissed
the suit. The present appeal is directed against the decree of the
High Court.
The appellants are the partners of the firm Shiam Lal Radhey
Lal. The first respondent is the Agra Mahapalika; the second
respondent is the Health Officer of the Mahapalika. The Military
Dairy Farm at Agra was in possession of a certain quantity of
wheat flour.
It was declared unfit for human consumption .. It
was purchased for the firm.
According to the
appellants,
it
was fit for being used as lehi, manure and ratab for consumption
by animals. Broadly stated, their case was that the respondents
initially stopped them from selling the flour and suExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.