S. SAMUEL, M.D., HARRISONS MALAYALAM AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 295 · Decided: 06-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

S. SAMUEL, M.D., HARRI SONS MALAY ALAM AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 6, 2003 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
Essential Commodities Act, 1955-Section 2(a)(v), (xi) 3 and 5-Tamil 
Nadu Scheduled Articles (Prescription of Standards) Order, 1977-Delegation 
of powers by Central Government under section 5 in favour of State Government 
B 
in relation to foodstuff-State Control Order of 1977 making provisions C 
applicable to commodity tea-Constitutional validity of the order-Held: As 
tea is not a foodstuff and there is no delegation of powers by Central 
Government under section 5 in relation to tea, State could not have promulgated 
an order under Section 3 of the 1955 Act making it applicable to tea, thus the 
provisions of Order in relation to tea ultra vires the power of the State D 
Government-Constitution of India, 1950, Schedule Vil-List III-Entry 33-
Tea Act, 1953-Section 2. 
Words and Phrases : 
'Food', 'foodstuff, 'tea'-Meaning of-Discussed-Jn the context of 
Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 
E 
In exercise of powers conferred by section 5 of the Essential 
Commodities Act, 1955 by a notification Central Government dele;,ated 
the powers to make orders in regard to certain clauses of sub section 3(2), 
in relation to 'food stuffs' in favour of State Government. State of Tamil 
Nadu promulgated the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Articles (Prescription of F 
Standards Order), 1977 for toning up the supply and availability of certain 
dsential articles and also for maintaining and raising the standards of 
quality of sale and supply. The order was applicable to several articles in 
the schedule including tea. Furthermore the order prohibited supply or 
sale of scheduled articles not according to the prescribed standards and G 
the competent officers were conferred with the powers of food inspector, 
powers of entry, seizure search etc. By a notification the Central 
Government declared tea to be an essential commodity. Also a fresh 
notification was also issued which also confined to foodstuffs. Thereafter, 
by virtue of the Order of 1977 competent officer searched the godown of 
295 
If 
296 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A the appellants and took tea samples. Complaint was lodged against the 
appellants alleging that the tea samples were found to contain an 
adulterant in violations of the provisions of the Order. Appellants filed 
writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Order regarding 
its applicability to 'tea'. Writ petition was dismissed. Hence the present 
B appeals. 
c 
Appellants contended that 'tea' is not 'foodstufr; and that the State 
could not have, in exercise of the delegated power, issued a Control Order 
embracing 'tea' within the sweep of its applicability. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. 'Foodstufr will not include tea as tea t~ither in the form 
of the leaves or in the form of beverage as it does not go into the 
preparation of food proper to make it more palatable and digestible. Tea 
leaves are not eaten. Tea is a beverage produced by steeping tea leaves or 
buds of the tea plants in boiled water. Such 'tea' is consumed hot or cold 
D for its flavour, taste and its quality as a stimulant. The stimulating effect 
is caused by the presence of caffeine therein. 'Tea' neither nourishes the 
body nor sustains or promotes its growth. It does not have a nutritional 
value. It does not help in formation of enzymes nor does it enable 
anabolism. In common parlance, any one who has taken tea would not 
E say that he has taken or eaten food. Thus, 'tea' is not 'food' or 'foodstufr. 
Also it is not understood as 'food' or 'foodstufr either in common parlance 
or by the opinion of Lexicographers. Furthermore it is a wrong assumption 
to say that many a poor man in the country take a cup of tea more as a 
food as it keeps them active for some time and enables them to work. High 
Court has confused a mere stimulant with an article of food or foodstuffs. 
F A drink or beverage which acts merely as a stimulant is not food. 
[310-D-F; 312-A-B) 
The State of Bombay v. Virkumar Gulabchand Shah, (1952) SCR 877; 
K. Janardhan Pillai and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 11981) 2 SCC 45 
and Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I and Anr. v. Mis. Parie Exports 
G (P) ltd, 11989) 1 sec 345, referred to. 
Hinde v. Allmond, (1918) 87 LJKB 893, referred to. 
Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, Eighth Edn 
2001, p. 279; Chambers D

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