May 15, 2016

‘We’ve failed, my lord’: In High Court, Govt admits failure in implementing Food Safety Act


Bench defers action after assurance of prompt funds by Chief Secretary
The state government on Saturday admitted before Jammu and Kashmir High Court that it has failed to implement Food Safety and Standard Act 2006.
Issuing directions on a Public Interest Litigation against food adulteration, the court, however, deferred disciplinary action against erring officials after Chief Secretary assured the court that he will immediately take review of the all aspects concerning the implementation of the Act.
“In view of the assurance given by the Chief Secretary we defer recommending initiation of the disciplinary action to be taken against the authorities who failed to implement the Act of 2006 till date,” a division bench of Justice Muzaffar Hussain Attar and Ali Muhammad Magrey said.
Advocate General, D C Raina, and Chief Secretary, B R Sharma, candidly accepted that the Act was not implemented in the manner it should have been after senior lawyer and Amicus Curie, Bashir Ahmad Bashir, pleaded that J&K is the only state which does not have full-fledged food testing laboratory in terms of Food Safety and Standard Act.
Disapproving the manner in which the Act has been implemented in the state, the bench said: “We made it clear to authorities that whosoever has been involved at different points of time in implementing the Act of 2006 have exhibited only skin deep concern to the sufferings of people of the State.”
“The State authorities, in order to ameliorate the lot of suffering people, are required to show sole deep concern,” the bench observed.
Following the observations of the court, the Chief Secretary assured that without waiting for financial assistance from the central government, funds for setting up technologically advanced laboratories at Jammu and Srinagar would be immediately provided by the State.
He also assured the court that mobile testing laboratories will be provided to the Food Safety Department saying the authorities created in terms of Act of 2006 would also be put in place shortly.
The court said that while the Chief Secretary along with other senior officers was present in pursuance to its previous directions, it added that the necessity of appearance of senior functionaries of the State arose because of the report filed by the authorities under Food Safety and Standard Act.
In the report, the court said, it was stated that two existing labs, one each in Jammu and Srinagar, are outdated and literally non-functional.
“Since the issue concerns the health of the people of the State and for the reasons the Act of 2006 has not been implemented in the State of Jammu and Kashmir till date in the manner it is stated in the said Act, these authorities were directed to appear before the Court,” the court said.
The Court exempted the CS and other officers from personal appearance.
Meanwhile, taking on record the latest status report filed by Additional Advocate General, M I Dar, the court arrayed the owners of food manufacturing companies whose names figured in the report as party respondents.
The court asked Advocate P Kohli, who appeared for 22 food manufacturing units from Jammu, to file by next date of hearing undertakings in terms of the court order dated April 27.
The Court also directed Commissioner Secretary Food Safety to inform in writing to all the manufacturing units, whose particulars were given in today’s compliance report, about the order dated April 27 and inform them about the affidavits they have to file in terms of the said court order.
On April 27, the court had directed the owners of food processing units to file affidavits indicating that the food items they supply in the market are fit for human consumption.
During proceedings, the court today made certain observations following the arguments of counsels representing various food manufacturing companies. While the counsels argued that Food Safety and Standard Act 2006 is not perfect enough to make available cure to all the prevailing ills, the court disagreed.
“They have to choose a way either to surrender the license they have got under the Act to run their units or to comply with the Act,” the court observed.

No comments:

Post a Comment