Srinagar: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh on Friday dismissed a petition filed by Gujarat-based dairy cooperative Banaskantha District Cooperative Milk Producers’ Union Ltd, challenging criminal proceedings initiated over an allegedly unsafe milk sample marketed as “Amul Taza Homogenised Toned Milk.”
The bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while dismissing the petition, held that protection of public health must prevail over private commercial interests and observed that contaminated milk products could have “serious and irreversible consequences,” particularly for children and infants.
The petition had been filed by Assistant Manager (Quality Assurance) S.D. Mevada and Incharge Managing Director Kamraj Ramsang Bhai Chaudary seeking quashing of a complaint pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shopian, along with the cognizance order dated October 7, 2021.
The petitioners of Amul Taza claimed that the initial report issued by the Food Analyst Kashmir on October 27, 2020 had declared the milk sample to be of “standard quality”. They contended that authorities illegally referred the sample to a Referral Laboratory without giving them an opportunity of hearing and without recording reasons as required under Rule 2.4.3 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011.
However, the court found that the designated officer had duly recorded reasons before referring the sample for further testing. The officer had noted that crucial parameters such as antibiotic residues, pesticide residues and heavy metals had not been examined in the first analysis.
The Referral Laboratory at the National Dairy Development Board, Anand, Gujarat, subsequently declared the sample “unsafe” under provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Rejecting the plea of the petitioners, Justice Nargal observed that Rule 2.4.3 specifically empowers the designated officer to refer a sample to a Referral Laboratory if the initial report appears incomplete, deficient or erroneous.
“The provision is intended to protect public health and safety and not merely individual commercial interests,” the court said, adding that authorities cannot be expected to mechanically accept incomplete reports where important safety parameters affecting human health remain unexamined.
The court further ruled that there is no statutory requirement of granting a prior hearing before sending samples to a Referral Laboratory and held that the report of the Referral Laboratory carries overriding effect over the initial analyst’s report.
On the issue of liability of the Managing Director, the court held that persons in charge of a company cannot claim blanket immunity merely because another officer has been nominated for food safety purposes. It said such questions can only be examined during trial.
The court also vacated the interim stay operating from April 2022, observing that continuation of the stay was “seriously jeopardizing the health of the public”.
Dismissing the petition as devoid of merit, the court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shopian, to proceed with the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months.
