- (1.) Heard Sri Vishnu Behari Tewari learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate General for the State of U.P. and Sri Vaibhav Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India. Learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government has passed over three photo copies of the D.O. letters issued by the Special Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Union of India, New Delhi dated 8.5.2012, 27.8.2012 and 29.8.2012 which direct the State of U.P. to pass necessary orders at the State level prohibiting the sale and distribution of "Gutka" and "pan masala" containing tobacco, in the light of the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 (hereafter 'Food Safety Act' or 'the Act'), Regulation 2.3.4 of the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011 (hereafter regulations) which put restrictions on adding tobacco and nicotine to any food product. As learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India prays for time to file a counter affidavit annexing the said D.O. letters and other material for clarifying the stance of the Union of India, he is allowed two weeks time for this purpose.
(2.) However as it was mentioned in the affidavit filed by the State Government dated 10.9.2012 that the State would act according to the "Marg-darshan" (directions) of the Central Government and as the aforesaid letters of the Central government issued through the Special Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare already sent to the State government clearly contain the necessary directions to place restrictions on the sale and distribution of "gutka" or "pan masala" containing tobacco, we see no impediment before the State for not taking suitable steps for issuing the necessary directions on this matter in the next 14 days.
(3.) It is worth noting that in view of the issuance of Regulation 2.3.4 at present as many as 13 States have imposed bans on the manufacture, distribution and sale of 'Gutka' or 'pan masala' containing tobacco. There have also been no stay orders by the High Courts of those States or the Supreme Court on the decisions of the aforesaid States to impose restrictions on this product. The High Courts of M.P., Mumbai, Kerala and Patna have already affirmed the decisions of their State governments imposing these restrictions.;