India

Nestle moves Bombay HC, seeks quashing of Maggi recall orders

TN RAGHUNATHA

The beleaguered multinational Giant Nestle India ltd on Thursday moved the Bombay High Court, challenging the orders of Commissioner of Food Safety, Government of Maharashtra and Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) banning nine variants of its instant noodles from the Indian market for being “hazardous” to public health.

Nestle India’s lawyer made an oral mention of a revision application filed by the company challenging the impugned order passed by food safety authorities in Delhi and Maharashtra, before a HC Division Bench of Justice VM Kanade and BP Colabawalla. The HC posted Nestle’s revision application for hearing on Friday.

Nestle India’s counsel made a case for the high court hearing the company’s case on a priority on the ground that the Maggi firm had suffered losses owing to the directives by the food authorities which had asked the company to withdraw and recall the products from the market with immediate effect after finding that they were “hazardous to public health due to presence of lead more than the permissible limits”.

In its plea, Nestle India urged the HC to quash the New Delhi-based FSSAI’s June 5 order directing the company to withdraw and recall all its nine variants of Maggi from the market on the ground that they were “unsafe” and “hazardous” for human consumption and to stop production, processing, import, distribution and sale of their products with immediate effect.

Nestle India also urged the court to aside aside the impugned order of Maharashtra’s Commissioner of Food Safety, banning the production and sale of ‘Maggi’ products of the company in the State.

In its revision application, Nestle India claimed that the impugned orders did not comply with the mandatory provisions of section 34 of Food Safety and Standards Authority Act which deals with Emergency prohibition notices and orders. Its plea said the orders were passed without any authority and without following due process of law.

The company claimed that the impugned orders were “illegal, arbitrary” and “in violation of” the principles of natural justice as well as the Constitution of India.