High Court of Karnataka Dismisses PIL Challenging Rajasthan's Gutka Notification for Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction. The court held that no part of cause of action arose within Karnataka as the notification was issued in Rajasthan, the petitioner resides in Rajasthan, and all respondents are outside Karnataka.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 12
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Rahul Joshi, a resident of Jaipur, Rajasthan, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the High Court of Karnataka challenging a notification dated 01.08.2016 issued by the State of Rajasthan. The notification permitted the manufacture and sale of gutka and pan masala containing tobacco within the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner contended that the notification was contrary to the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) and the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011, which prohibit the use of tobacco and nicotine in food products. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to quash the notification and direct the respondents to enforce the central prohibition. The respondents included the Union of India, the State of Rajasthan, and various associations and companies involved in the manufacture and sale of gutka and pan masala. The primary legal issue was whether the High Court of Karnataka had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition, as the cause of action arose entirely within the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner argued that since the Union of India and the Federation of Karnataka Virginia Tobacco Growers Association were respondents, part of the cause of action arose in Karnataka. However, the court held that no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. The notification was issued in Rajasthan, the petitioner resided in Rajasthan, and the respondents were located outside Karnataka. The court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, without going into the merits of the case. The court did not decide on the validity of the notification or the interpretation of the FSS Act.

Headnote

A) Public Interest Litigation - Territorial Jurisdiction - Maintainability - The petitioner, a resident of Jaipur, Rajasthan, filed a PIL in the High Court of Karnataka challenging a notification issued by the State of Rajasthan permitting manufacture and sale of gutka and pan masala containing tobacco. The court held that no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court as the notification was issued in Rajasthan, the petitioner resides in Rajasthan, and the respondents are located outside Karnataka. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable. (Paras 1-10)

B) Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Prohibition of Food Products - Section 26(2)(i) and Regulation 2.3.4 of Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011 - The court examined whether the notification permitting manufacture and sale of gutka and pan masala containing tobacco was contrary to the central prohibition under the FSS Act. The court noted that the FSS Act and regulations prohibit the use of tobacco and nicotine in food products, but the notification was issued by the State under its powers. The court did not decide on the merits due to lack of jurisdiction. (Paras 11-20)

C) Delegated Legislation - Validity of State Notification - The court observed that the State of Rajasthan had issued the notification under the Rajasthan Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011, which was challenged as being ultra vires the FSS Act. However, the court did not adjudicate on this issue due to the maintainability question. (Paras 21-25)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the notification dated 01.08.2016 issued by the State of Rajasthan permitting manufacture and sale of gutka and pan masala containing tobacco is valid under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and whether the High Court of Karnataka has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the PIL challenging the same.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable for lack of territorial jurisdiction. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Public Interest Litigation
  • Food Safety and Standards Act
  • 2006
  • Prohibition of Food Products
  • Tobacco Control
  • Doctrine of Severability
  • Delegated Legislation
  • Judicial Review of Policy Decisions
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (KAR) (12) 15

Writ Petition No.34194/2016 (GM-RES-PIL)

2017-12-15

B.S. Patil, B.V. Nagarathna

Sudharsan Suresh, K.V. Dhananjay, Tejasvi Surya, T. Suryanarayana, S.R. Joshi, Sarvesh Jain, Krishna S. Dixit, Aditya Singh, S.R. Dodawad, Aditya Sondhi, Vasant V. Fernandes, R.B. Mathur, Shivangshu Naval, Sajan Poovayya, Aradhana Lakhtakia, Shristi Widge, Pratibhanu Singh Kharola, Nalina Mayegowda, Vivek Kohli, Nalin Talwar

Rahul Joshi

Union of India, Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, State of Rajasthan, Principal Secretary, Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan Zarda Pan Masala Vikreta Sangh, Federation of Karnataka Virginia Tobacco Growers Association, The Rajasthan Pan Merchant Sansthan, M/S. Arora Tobacco Pvt. Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Public Interest Litigation challenging a state notification permitting manufacture and sale of gutka and pan masala containing tobacco.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to quash the notification dated 01.08.2016 issued by the State of Rajasthan and to direct the respondents to enforce the prohibition under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

Filing Reason

Petitioner alleged that the notification permitting manufacture and sale of gutka and pan masala containing tobacco was contrary to the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the regulations thereunder, which prohibit the use of tobacco and nicotine in food products.

Issues

Whether the High Court of Karnataka has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging a notification issued by the State of Rajasthan. Whether the notification dated 01.08.2016 permitting manufacture and sale of gutka and pan masala containing tobacco is valid under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that since the Union of India and the Federation of Karnataka Virginia Tobacco Growers Association are respondents, part of the cause of action arose in Karnataka. Respondents argued that no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court as the notification was issued in Rajasthan, the petitioner resides in Rajasthan, and all other respondents are located outside Karnataka.

Ratio Decidendi

For a writ petition to be maintainable before a High Court, at least part of the cause of action must arise within its territorial jurisdiction. In this case, the notification was issued in Rajasthan, the petitioner resides in Rajasthan, and all respondents are located outside Karnataka. Therefore, no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court, and the petition is not maintainable.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner is a resident of Jaipur, Rajasthan. The impugned notification has been issued by the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner has challenged the said notification before this Court. No part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.34194/2016 before the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, on 15.12.2017, challenging the notification dated 01.08.2016 issued by the State of Rajasthan. The court heard the matter and dismissed the petition on the same day for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Acts & Sections

  • Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006: Section 26(2)(i)
  • Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011: Regulation 2.3.4
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses PIL Challenging Rajasthan's Gutka Notification for Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction. The court held that no part of cause of action arose within Karnataka as the notification was issued in Rajasthan, the petitioner r...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes Land Acquisition Notifications for Lack of Public Purpose and Non-Compliance with KIADB Act. Acquisition for Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board fails as the Board is not an industrial concern under Section 2(7) ...