AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—Petitioner is a company engaged in the business of cereals manufactured from out of edible grains imported from various parts of the world.
In so far as this writ petition is concerned, according to the Petitioner, they imported 40 containers of Australian Premium White Wheat. It is stated that after the analysis by the second Respondent, out of the 40 containers, 5 containers have been cleared for home consumption. In so far as the remaining 35 containers are concerned, it would appear that representative samples were drawn by the second Respondent and that on analysis, it was found that the samples did not match with the PFA standards. Accordingly, Petitioner was issued Exts.P11 to P16 reports and the defect pointed out reads as under:
Pesticide Residue - Chlorpyriphos exceeds the maximum standard limit of 0.05 ppm(mg/kg).
Petitioner reiterates that the defect pointed out is factually incorrect and contends that in order to prove their contention regarding the quantity of the wheat, they approached the second Respondent on repeated occasions requesting to send representative sample of the wheat for analysis and report to the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore. According to the Petitioner, on the ground that there is no provision of law, enabling him to do that, the second Respondent has declined to accept the Petitioner''s request. It is complaining of the above, this writ petition has been filed, praying for that second Respondent be directed to take representative sample of the Australian Premium White Wheat from out of the containers, in which the cargo is stored and send the same for analysis and report of the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore.
I heard the Standing Counsel appearing for the first Respondent and also the Assistant Solicitor General on behalf of the second Respondent.
The first Respondent submits that they were going by the report of the second Respondent and that they have nothing to do on their own in the matter. The second Respondent who has issued the certificate reiterates the position as disclosed in Exts.P11 to P16 reports.
Evidently, Exts.P11 to P16 reports show that in the analysis conducted by the second Respondent, the consignment in question does not satisfy the PFA standards. If that be so, obviously, the Petitioner cannot require the first Respondent to permit clearance of the goods. At the same time, Petitioner should also be entitled to have an opportunity to prove its case that the cargo in question is not a substandard one as certified in Exts.P11 to P16. This is possible only if the goods in question are got analysed, in another independent and acceptable laboratory. In that view of the matter and also for the reason that there is no statutory prohibition in the request of the Petitioner, I see no reason to decline the prayer made by the Petitioner.
Therefore, I direct the second Respondent to draw representative sample from the containers in which the goods in question are remaining in the wharf, send the same for analysis in the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore and get their report in the matter. It is directed that once the report is received as above, such report will be conclusive and the Respondents will take further action based on the findings in the report. It is clarified that the entire expenses involved in the matter will be incurred by the Petitioner and will be remitted in advance to the second Respondent or to such other authority as may be notified by the second Respondent. It is further directed that until the aforesaid exercise is completed, the goods in question shall not be auctioned or otherwise disposed of. The demurrage, if any, payable in the meanwhile will also be borne by the Petitioner only.
Writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.