324 kg cottage cheese worth Rs 58,000 seized in Barwala near Chandigarh

The raid was conducted at 6 am on Tuesday following the tip off that cottage cheese was being sold at Barwala in Haryana 

Officials from the food and drugs administration, Panchkula, and the Haryana chief minister’s flying squad examining cottage cheese seized at Barwala in Haryana.

Acting on tip-off that adulterated cottage cheese (paneer) was being sold at Barwala in Haryana, officials from the food and drugs administration, Panchkula, and the chief minister’s flying squad, seized 324 kilograms of the milk product after a raid. It was estimated to cost Rs 58,000.

Samples have been sent to a laboratory in Karnal for analysis.

The raid was conducted at 6 am on Tuesday following the tip off that cottage cheese was being sold from a rented room in Barwala.

Panchkula food safety officer, Dr Gaurav Sharma, said he could not comment on the quality of the product till lab reports were received, which, he said, “have been sought in two days.”

Dr Sharma said product was being manufactured in Narwana and t brought to Barwala in a car. The sellers “had taken a room on rent where they used to store the paneer to supply to villages close by at cheap rates.”

In fact, the low price, Rs 160 to Rs 180, per kg, almost 50% less than market rates, had first raised suspicions, he added.

Bombay high court dismisses plea of Mumbai’s sweet shop owners seeking relaxation of expiry date rule

The Bombay high court (HC) has asked a sweet sellers’ association to deposit Rs1 lakh for challenging the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s (FSSAI) decision, asking the traders’ body to put a ‘best before’ date on loose sweets being sold by them from October 1. The court held that the association was trying to undo the precautionary measure initiated by the food department in public interest and dismissed the petition.

A division bench of chief justice Dipankar Datta and justice Girish Kulkarni was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Shri Mumbai Mishtanna Vayasai Sahakari Mandal, which has around 250 members. The bench was informed by advocate Uday Warunjikar — who represented the sweet sellers’ association — that the FSSAI had issued an order on February 24, mandating sweetmeat shops selling non-packaged or loose sweets to display the date of manufacturing and ‘best before’ date on the container or tray holding the sweets. Warunjikar submitted that this was the first of the three order issued by the FSSAI. The other two orders were issued on September 25 and 30.

While the September 25 order reiterated the February 24 order and stated: “In the public interest and to ensure food safety, it has been decided that in case of non-packaged/loose sweets, the container/tray holding sweets at the outlet for sale should display the ‘best before’ date of the product mandatorily, with effect from October 1.”

Warunjikar informed the court that while the September 30 FSSAI order clarified that the September 25 order was only pertaining to Indian sweets and local language was allowed to be used on the container in which the sweets were to be packaged, the directive was discriminatory and hence the association moved the PIL seeking setting aside of the three orders of FSSAI passed under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

After hearing the submissions, the court observed, “The petitioner seeks to undo what the authority proposed to do for the benefit of consumers and therefore, it is thoroughly misconceived. We order the petitioner to deposit Rs1 lakh to the advocates’ Covid-19 welfare fund.” The court said that it will pass a detailed and reasoned order later and dismissed the petition.

Bombay HC imposes Rs 1 lakh fine on PIL by sweet shop owners challenging FSSAI’s ‘best before’ tag rule

The Court observed that the petitioner association sought to undo what the authority proposed to do for the benefit of consumers and therefore the PIL was ‘misconceived’ and imposed a fine of Rs. 1 lakh to be paid to Advocates’ Covid welfare fund.

The FSSAI order also said that the sweet shops may display manufacturing dates which shall be ‘purely voluntary’ and ‘non-binding’ and the shops shall display ‘best before date’ of sweets depending upon the nature of product and local conditions.

The Bombay High Court Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) by association of sweet shops owners in Mumbai and a imposed a Rs 1 lakh fine for challenging directions of Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). The directions mandated sweet shops to display ‘best before date’ on the container tray of non-packaged or loose sweets from October 1.

The Court observed that the petitioner association sought to undo what the authority proposed to do for the benefit of consumers and therefore the PIL was ‘misconceived’ and imposed a fine of Rs. 1 lakh to be paid to Advocates’ Covid welfare fund.

The decision was taken in view of some instances, which were reported about the expired sweets being sold to consumers posing health hazards.

Thereafter, the FSSAI on September 25 issued an order which stated: “In the public interest and to ensure food safety, it has been decided that in case of non-packaged/loose sweets, the container/tray holding sweets at the outlet for sale should display the ‘best before date’ of the product mandatorily with effect from October 1.”

The FSSAI order also said that the sweet shops may display manufacturing dates which shall be ‘purely voluntary’ and ‘non-binding’ and the shops shall display ‘best before date’ of sweets depending upon the nature of product and local conditions.

Moreover, the petitioner association said that through September 30, the FSSAI clarified that the September 25 order was applicable only to ‘Indian sweets’ and local language was allowed to be used on the container consisting the sweets. Alleging the same to be discriminatory, the association moved PIL before the HC challenging the orders passed under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

Dismissing the PIL, the Court said, “…the petitioner seeks to undo what the authority proposed to do for the benefit of consumers and therefore it is thoroughly misconceived. We order costs of Rs. 1 lakh to Advocates’ Covid welfare fund.” The Court will pass reasoned order in due course.