Maharashtra government to challenge Bombay High Court order on Maggi in Supreme Court to seek a ban again.
Maggi might be back in the market setting the sales through e-commerce on fire, but the legal troubles for Maggi seem to worsen with the Centre backing the Maharashtra govt decision to challenge the Bombay High Court order in the Supreme Court.
Government sources tell India today that Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi has been consulted and will be representing the state of Maharashtra at the apex Court seeking to reinforce the ban on Nestle's most popular product.
The Maharashtra govt had been mulling over a challenge to lifting of ban on Maggi. After clean chit by HC appointed labs, Nestle re-launched Maggi on Nov 9.
All laboratories that conducted earlier tests approved the product. According to the test reports, there was no question of doubting veracity of reports on lead, MSG content.
However, the Bombay High Court refused to consider that lead content was beyond permissible limit. It virtually reviewed its own Maggi order, not permissible.
- Maharashtra govt consults Attorney General, Law Ministry over challenge to Maggi.
- Maharashtra govt seeks to reimpose ban on Maggi
- Attorney General, Law Ministry back Maharashtra govt over challenge to Maggi.
- Attorney General likely to appear for Maharashtra govt's challenge to Maggi.
- Maharashtra govt likely to file plea in SC by next week.
Maharashtra govt petitions in Supreme Court:
- Maharashtra govt to seek re-enforcing of Ban on Maggi
- Maharashtra govt to seek stay on Bom HC order quashing ban.
- Maharashtra govt defends powers under Food Safety Act to enforce ban.
- Maharashtra govt to cite lab reports relied on by FSSAI, says veracity can't be questioned.
- Nestle had alternative legal remedy available under Food Safety Act
- Plea before Bombay HC was not maintainable
- Maharashtra govt erred in holding that Nestle right to natural justice had been violated.
- Scope of powers under Food Safety Act allows for ban orders
- Provisions of Food Safety Act not considered in right perspective by Bombay HC.