GODAWAT PAN MASALA PRODUCTS I.P. LTD. AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 239 · Decided: 02-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

c 
GODAWAT PAN MASALA PRODUCTS LP. LTD. AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 2, 2004 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
B 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Sections 2((1a), 7(iv), 23 
and 24-Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of 
Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, 
Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles C 
14 and 19(J)(g)-Ban on Gutka and Pan Masala-By Notifications of State 
Government-Tobacco products covered by subsequent Act of 2003-
0ther tobacco products not banned-Opportunity of being heard not given 
to the affected persons before issuing Notifications-Ban challenged-
High Court upheld validity of Notifications-On appeal held; Notifications D 
are ultra vires the Act and void and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) 
of Constitution and violative of Principles of Natural Justice-The State 
Authorities had no power to prohibit the manufacture, sale, storage or 
distribution of the articles-Such power lies with Central Government 
under Rules framed under Section 23-2003 Act dealing with the articles 
being directly in conflict with the Act and being a special act and of later E 
origin overrides the provisions of the Act with regard to power to prohibit 
the articles-Power of State is descernible under Section 24(2) and is of 
transient nature-Rules made under Section 24 are subservient to Rules 
derivable under Section 23-Notification is unreasonable and excessive in 
nature-Maharashtra Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1962-Goa, F 
Daman and Diu Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1982. 
Interpretation of statutes : 
Legislative intent of statute-Ascertainment of-Held: Should be G 
ascertained not merely by construing a particular clause but the scheme 
of the entire statute. 
Administrative Law : 
Principles of Natural Justice-Compliance-Need for-In case of H 
239 
240 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A conditional legislation-Held, compliance of the principles is necessary in 
such cases. 
Various State Governments issued Notifications u/s 7(iv) of 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 by which manufacture, 
B sale, storage and distribution of Pan Masala and Gutka were banned 
for different periods in the interest of public healtil. Appellants-
manufactures of Pan Malala and Gutka, challenged the Notifications. 
Different High Courts upheld the validity of the Notifications. Hence, 
the present appeals. Some Associations and Co-operative Societies of 
arecanut growers and some manufacturers and sellers of Pan Malasa 
C and Gutka filed Writ Petition in this Court challenging another 
Notification issued u/s 7(iv) of the Act to the same effect. 
Appellants/Petitioners contended that State Government did not 
have power to issue an order of Prohibition as the power to declare 
D a substance as injurious to health lies only with the Central Government 
under Section 23 of the Act; that sinire the manufacture of the product 
is undertaken under a licence issued by Central Government, it is not 
open to State Government to prohibit the manufacture by au 
administrative order so long as terms of licence and conditions 
E stipulated in the statute are not violated; that power of State Government 
to frame rules under Section 24 is extremely narrow and limited to the 
field not covered by Section 23; that Section 7 is not declaratory of the 
power of any authority, but merely of the consequences of certain acts; 
that the Act is concerned with the prevention of adulterated articles 
of food and not intended to prohibit any article used as food or 
F otherwise; that Notification issued by State of Maharashtra operates 
extra territorially, and, to that extent, is ultra vires of the powers of 
the State; that by enacting Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products 
(Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, 
Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (Act 34 of 2003) 
G Parliament has evinced its intention to occupy whole field with regard 
to tobacco products; that while Central legislation prohibits the sale 
of tobacco only to persons below 18 years of age, the wholesale ban 
by the Notification is without any qualification; that in conflict between 
powers exercisable under two central statutes dealing with the same 
H subject, the later enactment would prevail as the later enactment 
GODA WAT PAN MASALA PRODUCTS LP. LTD. v. U.O.l. 
241 
would be deemed t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.