Imported bakery takes over local

Srinagar, Aug 18: At a time when the shoppers have swarmed the city shops, courtesy Eid Shopping, the high prices and the low product quality, have left them seething in anger  and paving the way for the imported cookies to be better alternatives.
Indigenous bread, pastries and cakes over the years, have been preferred choice of Kashmiris on festivals like Eid, but, of late,  packed bakery (cookies to be specific)imported from outside the state are proving to be an alternative for locals. Majority of the top departmental stores and small shops have felt the trend and are selling fair quantity of imported bakery.
Although local bakery still rules the roost, but packed cookies made in various states of India are creating their own niche in the Valley.
“Hygienic nature and more longevity” are the main reasons of imported bakery over the one made here. Its affordable rates are also playing its part in raising their sales.
The eggless packed bakery is luring Kashmiris towards its consumption big time.
“We all know bakers in Kashmir use eggs for making their stuff like cakes and cookies. Most of the eggs in hot conditions are rotten. To avoid consuming bakery stuffed with rotten eggs, we prefer packed bakery from outside the state,” says Ghulam Mohammad Khan, busy in purchasing packed cookies from a general store in Residency road
He further added: “Customers cannot be duped as the rates are labeled on the packs with its ingredients.”
 The people alleged that local bakers are also overcharging them and the products do not meet the quality standards.
“The local bakers use rotten eggs as had been established during the recent raids by the authorities,” said Mushtaq Ahmad from Jawahar Nagar.
The authorities have recently launched raids against the violators and have fined many bakers whose products were not meeting the standards.
Food safety Officer Reyaz Ahmad Chaudhary said that they are doing their best to prevent the bakery that does not meet the safety standards from reaching out to the customers.
“We have raided many areas in the Srinagar city and have fined many shopkeepers who were found violating the norms. We have destroyed two trucks of eggs that were found rotten,” said Reyaz, adding that they have also destroyed the rotten bakery cream and other bakery products on the spot verification that the bakers were using in order to earn more bucks.
However the customers are not satisfied as they have alleged that the bakery products are being sold at exorbitant rates. They also accused the authorities of not acting tough against the shopkeepers indulging in black marketeering and in illegal profiteering.
“We fail to understand why there are different rates for the same product at different places. A plum cake at one shop costs Rs 100 and the same cake costs Rs 150 at another. The shopkeepers are flouting the rates,” said Javed Ahmad, adding that the shoppers are being hoodwinked as everybody is in a hurry.
Another customer questions “Why to check markets only on the special occasions? This should be a round the year exercise,” said Arshid Ahmad, a government employee.
The authorities were also caught napping as they have not revised the rates from 2011 nor did they fix any rates for the current year.
“It is true that we have not fixed any rates for the current year as there has been no meeting in this regard. The bakers association also did not contact us in this regard,” said Assistant Director of the Enforcement Wing CAPD.
However he could not provide any clear answers why they have not fixed the rates for the bakery products.

Adulterated Food Items

As per information received from some States/U.Ts, state-wise details of the number of samples of food articles examined and found adulterated during the year 2011-2012, are Annexed.

Random samples of various food articles including fruits, vegetables, and pulses are drawn regularly by the State/U.T Governments and penal action is taken against the offenders, in cases where samples are found not conforming to the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

The Food Safety and Standards Act, (FSSA) 2006 was passed by the Parliament establishing the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to lay down science based standards for the articles of food and to regulate their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import, and to ensure availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption. This Act has replaced the erstwhile the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and multiple food orders regulations. Rules and Regulations, setting various standards, under the FSSA have been notified with effect from 5.8.2011. Provisions and graded penalties have been made in the new Act. The food regulatory framework has now moved from limited prevention of food adulteration regime to safe and wholesome food regime. Under the new Law, the States have been requested to strengthen their food regulatory enforcement mechanisms.

The above information was given by the Minister of State for Health & Family Welfare Shri Sudip Bandyopadhyay in the Lok Sabha today.

Comparative Statement on percentage of adulterated food articles during 2011-12
Sl. No.	Name of State	No. of samples examined	No. of samples found adulterated
1.	Meghalaya	23	4
2.	Jammu & Kashmir	589 (PFA) 816 (FSSA)	98(PFA) 197 (FSSA)
3.	Bihar	1779	292
4.	Arunachal Pradesh	62	-
5.	Andhra Pradesh	7681 (PFA) 2232 (FSSA)	339 (PFA) 419 (FSSA)
6.	Punjab	6946	588
7.	Goa	224	13
8.	Dadra & Nagar Haveli	7	Nil
9.	Assam	N.A	N.A
10.	Chandigarh	N.A	N.A
11.	Chhattisgarh	N.A	N.A
12.	A & N Islands	N.A	N.A
13.	Daman & Diu	N.A	N.A
14.	Delhi	N.A	N.A
15.	Gujarat	N.A	N.A
16.	Haryana	N.A	N.A
17.	Himachal Pradesh	N.A	N.A
18.	Jharkhand	N.A	N.A
19.	Karnataka	N.A	N.A
20.	Kerala	N.A	N.A
21.	Lakshadweep	N.A	N.A
22.	Madhya Pradesh	N.A	N.A
23.	Maharashtra	N.A	N.A
24.	Manipur	N.A	N.A
25.	Mizoram	Nil	Nil
26.	Nagaland	N.A	N.A
27.	Orissa	N.A	N.A
28.	Puducherry	N.A	N.A
29.	Rajasthan	N.A	N.A
30.	Sikkim	N.A	N.A
31.	Tamil Nadu	N.A	N.A
32.	Tripura	N.A	N.A
33.	Uttar Pradesh	N.A	N.A
34.	Uttarakhand	N.A	N.A
35.	West Bengal	N.A	N.A
	Total	20359	1950
	Indication	N. A= Not Available
		Nil=0

States asked to strengthen food regulatory enforcement mechanisms

MUMBAI: Out of the total 20,359 samples of food articles which were examined across states during 2011-12, 1,950 were found to be adulterated, as per information provided by theMinister of State for Health & Family Welfare in the Lok Sabha today. The Ministry has collated the information from the various states and union territories (U.T) across India. 

As per the information, in states such as Bihar, where 1,779 samples were examined during the year, 292 were found to be adulterated. While inPunjab, out of 6,946 samples, 588 were adulterated. In Goa, on the other hand, 13 out of 224 samples were found to be adulterated. In Meghalaya, 4 out of 23 samples were adulterated, while in Dadra & Nagar Haveli no adulteration was found in the 7 samples that were examined during the period. 

"Random samples of various food articles including fruits, vegetables, and pulses are drawn regularly by the State/U.T Governments and penal action is taken against the offenders, in cases where samples are found not conforming to the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006,'' the ministry informed. 

The Food Safety and Standards Act, (FSSA) 2006 was passed by Parliament establishing the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to lay down science based standards for the articles of food and to regulate their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import, and to ensure availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption. This Act has replaced the erstwhile the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and multiple food orders regulations. Rules and Regulations, setting various standards, under the FSSA have been notified with effect from August 5, 2011. Provisions and graded penalties have been made in the new Act. 

The food regulatory framework has now moved from limited prevention of food adulteration regime to safe and wholesome food regime. The ministry said under the new Law, the states have been requested to strengthen their food regulatory enforcement mechanisms.

Delhi HC orders panel to submit report on banned pesticides

New Delhi : Delhi High Court Friday directed an experts' committee to submit a status report before Oct 10 suggesting guidelines to prevent rampant use of banned pesticides in vegetables and fruits.

The division bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Vipin Sanghi sought the report from the committee for framing a policy for periodic checks to detect pesticide residue in vegetables that pose health threats to people.

"There has been hardly any progress on the status report. In two months, only two meetings have been held. It's not acceptable to us. We expect meetings of the committee to be held more frequently. A status report must be filed positively before two days of the next date of hearing. Post the matter on Oct 10," the bench said.

The court was informed by the state government that committee members held two meetings since May 2, "On Aug 30, they (committee members) are meeting again and probably some action would be taken," said government counsel Meera Bhatia.

The court had earlier directed the government to constitute the committee after it took suo motu cognizance of a media report alleging use of banned pesticides.

The court observed that matters of this nature cannot be delayed and also expressed its displeasure that the committee had met only twice in the last three-and-a-half months.

The seven-member expert committee includes Sandhya Kulshrestha, secretary, central insecticide board and registration committee and Sarita Bhalla, joint director of agriculture ministry as committee's chairperson.

Other members are Dhir Singh, director of Food Safety and Standards Authority of India; N.K. Sharma, principal scientist in the agriculture ministry; S.M. Bhardwaj, food analyst at Delhi's Department of Food Safety; Vipin Bhatnagar, joint director at plant protection quarantine and storage, and senior advocate V.K. Rao.

NGO Consumer Voice's report found that 35 varieties of vegetables and fruits, picked from Delhi markets and tested for pesticide content, had toxins beyond permissible limits.

It told the court that vegetables and fruits sold in the city's markets contained poisons capable of causing cancer and harming the nervous system and liver.

The NGO said that the amount of pesticides used by farmers in India was as much as 750 times higher than European standards.

The court earlier formed a panel of lawyers to examine the pesticide content in various vegetables samples at laboratories.

The panel has so far examined over 10 types of vegetables.

 HC grants more time to committee to frame guidelines

The Delhi High Court today gave an expert committee time till October 8 to frame its guidelines to prevent the rampant use of banned pesticides in vegetables and fruits and submit its report to it by then.

The division bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Vipin Sanghi sought the report from the committee for framing a policy for periodic checks to detect pesticides' residue in vegetables and fruits.

Expressing displeasure over the committee for not holding its meetings frequently to decide the guidelines, the bench said, "There has been hardly any progress to the status report. In two months, only two meetings have been held. It's not acceptable to us.

We expect the committee to convene meetings more frequently. Status report be filed positively two days prior to the next date of hearing," said the bench, while posting the matter for October 10.

The court had earlier directed the Union government to constitute the committee after taking suo motu cognisance of a media report alleging use of banned pesticides in vegetables and fruits.
The court also observed that "the matters of these nature cannot be delayed" and said the committee needed to meet more frequently.
The bench had ordered forming of the seven-member expert committee, headed by Union agriculture ministry's Joint Director Sarita Bhalla with the Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee Secretary Sandhya Kulshrestha and others as its members.
The other members are Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) Director Dhir Singh, Principal Scientist N K Sharma of the agriculture ministry, Food Analyst S M Bhardwaj of Delhi's Department of Food Safety, Joint Director (Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage) Vipin Bhatnagar and senior advocate V K Rao.

Cancer risk: Panel to examine soft drinks

Days after the US mandated that the drinks containing a certain level of carcinogens will have to bear a cancer warning, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has asked its scientific panel to study the content of the beverages in India to see if the same warning is required here as well.

Recently, the state of California added to its list of cancer causing chemicals a commonly used in flavoured soda beverages, mandating containing a certain level of carcinogens bear a cancer warning label.

While the ingredients modifications were made by the beverage companies in the USA caramel colouring using ammonia-sulfite in their sodas after the state of California added ammonia sulfite or 4-MI to its list of known carcinogens. The FSSAI has asked their experts to study the same. “This is a recent warning being put out. The matter has already been referred to the scientific panel of the FSSAI. If panels finds it necessary, we will take action in this regard,” FSSAI chairperson K. Chandramouli said.

The step in the US was taken after a study revealed that the chemical is linked to cancer in mice and rats. However, there is nothing to panic as the US FDA claims that a person will have to drink more than 1,000 cans of the soft drink a day to take in the same dose of the chemical that was given to the animals in the lab test.

Even the beverage powerhouses PepsiCo and Coca-Cola have already declared that they will modify the carmel colouring in their sodas to avoid a cancer warning label that the new California law requires.

Gutkha warriors

Eight states have banned gutkha. Others are following suit. Veenu Sandhuon the people who have brought this powerful industry to its knees

Last month, policemen in Naxal-infested Gadchiroli carried out a dramatic exercise to show that they were serious about enforcing the Maharashtra government’s ban on gutkha or flavoured tobacco. They seized gutkhasachets worth Rs 30,000 from the market, piled them up in the main square and set the lot on fire. States have declared war on gutkha. Starting April 1, eight have banned the manufacture, sale and storage of this mixture of tobacco, catechu, areca nut, slaked lime and food additives: Madhya Pradesh took the lead; Kerala, Bihar, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Haryana followed. Three days ago, in his Independence Day speech, Narendra Modi announced that gutkha will be banned in Gujarat from September 11 to “save the youths of Gujarat from the dreaded evil of cancer.” Himachal Pradesh has also announced a ban but deferred it till October. And Uttar Pradesh has upped the value-added tax on gutkha from 12.5 per cent to 50 per cent. Some villages in Uttar Pradesh have banned the sale of gutkha.

In India, 206 million people, including women and children as young as 13, use smokeless forms of tobacco which are known to cause cancer. Thegutkha market could be between Rs 15,000 crore and Rs 20,000 crore in annual sales. Sachets are sold through paan shops where you can find hundreds of brands; it clearly takes little to get started in gutkha. In the North-East, gutkha factories have been found to operate out of trucks. They could scoot at the sight of an excise inspector. And the gutkha lobby is strong and moneyed — so much money that the underworld got involved. Cashing in on the rivalry between two gutkha tycoons, Dawood Ibrahim’s brother, Anees, started the popular Fire brand of gutkha in Pakistan, says S Hussain Zaidi in his recent book Dongri to Dubai. For years, the gutkha makers have resisted crackdown. But now the wheels appear to be suddenly spinning against them at dizzying speed.

A group of people, inside and outside the government, as well as some organisations have been working hard to bring this powerful industry to its knees. Among them are Pankaj Chaturvedi, head and neck cancer surgeon at Tata Memorial Hospital in Mumbai, Ashwini Kumar Rai, former food safety commissioner of Madhya Pradesh, Keshav Desiraju, special secretary of health in the Union ministry of health and family welfare, Amal Pushp, director of the National Tobacco Control Programme, Voluntary Health Association of India (VHAI), a non-profit society, and Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), a public-private initiative.

* * *

The foundation stone for the battle was laid in 2004 when the Supreme Court, while hearing the Ghodawat Paan Masala case, ruled that “since paan masala, gutkha and supari are eaten for taste and nourishment, they all come under the category of food”. Until then, those in the business had always succeeded in challenging bans on the ground that gutkha is not a food item. The ruling had come in a case filed by gutkha manufacturers after the Maharashtra administration enforced a ban. The apex court, however, struck that ban down and said that only the Central government had the power to ban a food item. The Centre did nothing of that sort. The battle seemed lost. But hope soared again when, while hearing another case, the Supreme Court asked the ministry of health to study the impact of gutkha on health and submit a report. This case, filed by the Jaipur-based Indian Asthma Care Society, also led to a ban on the sale of tobacco, gutkha andpaan masala in plastic pouches — an environmentally hazardous business.

The apex court’s order for a health report was the opportunity which the anti-gutkha campaigners had been desperately hoping for. Bhavna Mukhopadhyay, the executive director of VHAI, and K Srinath Reddy, the president of PHFI, were among those who stepped up their advocacy campaigns with the government. The National Institute of Health & Family Welfare was preparing the report. On its panel of experts providing guidance and scientific proof of the havoc gutkha causes on a person’s health was Chaturvedi, the cancer specialist. Having seen his patients, gutkha addicts, suffer and die of oral cancer, he had set up an organisation called Voice of Tobacco Victims in 2009. He had realised that rattling off statistics about the ill-effects of gutkha had no impact on policy-makers; but human agony moved everybody and almost assured action. So, he had started getting cancer patients to tell their story to bureaucrats and policy makers in Maharashtra — an exercise he would later take to the national level.

The gutkha health report was finally submitted to the Supreme Court in February 2011. It was damning. Smokeless tobacco products, such asgutkha and khaini, it was found, have 3,095 chemical ingredients, of which 28 are proven carcinogens. It was time for action. The health ministry called for a national consultation on smokeless tobacco. Mukhopadhyay and members of PHFI were among the 80-odd tobacco control experts from across India who participated. Also present was Desiraju, who is the grandson of the country’s second president, Sarvepalli Radha-krishnan. “We asked the ministry, if this is so toxic then how come there’s no mention of this in the Food Safety and Standards Act,” says Mukhopadhyay. “Restrictions and regulations aren’t good enough. gutkha manufacturers always find ways around them,” she says. A ban was the only solution. Economic implications of a total ban, loss of revenue and livelihood, all came under discussion.

On August 1, four months after this national consultation, a new rule was notified under central government’s Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA). It said: “tobacco and nicotine shall not be used as ingredients in any food product”. This was that critical Central government order which gave the state governments the legal standing to act against gutkha. But it wasn’t over yet. Dharampal Satyapal Group (DS Group), the Rs 2,200-crore conglomerate which manufactures and sells Baba and Tulsi brands of gutkha, and some others went to court. In December, the director of Food Safety and Standards Authority of India submitted a counter affidavit in court on the “allegations/averments made by the petitioners”.

* * *

Desiraju waited no more. The FSSA rules in hand, he acted immediately and this January onwards, started sending out letters to states he “thought would act”. One such state was Madhya Pradesh. Its then food safety commissioner, Ashwini Kumar Rai, was waiting for something like this. He would have liked to crack down on gutkha earlier but decided to hold on just a few months before the licences of the 18 existing manufacturers expired on March 31. On April 1, not only did he issue the order banning the sale ofgutkha and barring new licences to be given out for its manufacture, he also started the raids on Day One. “All 18 went out of business in one day,” he says. He did not wait for the state cabinet to order the ban.

Though the FSSA rules empower the food safety commissioner to take such action, in every other state, the ban has gone through the cabinet. “This is a politically sensitive issue,” says Rai. “But my chief minister (Shivraj Singh Chouhan) was on board.” In less than two weeks, Rai had conducted over 1,000 raids in more than 50 districts. In four months, till July 25 when he became secretary (personnel), Rai had seized 4 million pouches of gutkhaworth Rs 1 crore. “The trade has now gone underground,” he says. “Pouches which were available for as little as Rs 1 now cost Rs 10.” It’s both good and bad. “Enforce-ment has become tougher. But then, gutkha is no longer easily available to women and children who would turn to it because they didn’t have to fear the stigma of lighting up.”

While Rai went after gutkha makers and sellers, Chaturvedi and VHAI took advocacy to the highest level. They held MLA sensitisation programmes in the state assemblies with the help of tobacco-related cancer victims and their families. “Six victims, including a widow and a 17-year-old boy who had lost his father to tobacco, told their stories to the chief minister and the MLAs in the Madhya Pradesh Assembly in March,” says Chaturvedi. Similar sessions were held in Chhattisgarh which banned gutkha, Maharashtra (banned bothgutkha and paan masala and increased taxes on bidi — “a highly politically sensitive issue”), Bihar (ban) and Kerala (Chief Minister Oommen Chandy increased the no-tobacco zone around educational institutes from 100 yards to 400 metres). “In Jammu & Kashmir, a patient who had lost his voice and was speaking through the hole in his neck told the MLAs how this was a trade of death and destruction,” says Chaturvedi. As a result, the state’s food commissioner has ordered that random samples of gutkha and paan masala be tested for tobacco and/or nicotine. In Uttar Pradesh, where Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav was not present, the session with cancer patients was held with the chief secretary and health, education and finance ministers. Uttar Pradesh has since scaled up VAT on gutkha four times. On a plea filed by the Uttar Pradesh chapter of the Indian Dental Association, the Allahabad High Court has served a show cause notice on the government asking it “why the FSSA regulation cannot be implemented in the state”.

In the health ministry, Desiraju has been writing to more and more states, mentioning in his letter the FSSA rules, the Supreme Court order which saysgutkha is a food item, Madhya Pradesh’s ban and the Allahabad High Court’s direction on the Indian Dental Association’s plea. With him in this is Amal Pushp, who took over as director of tobacco control in January. Between the two, they are responding to every query coming in from the states. “This is a central legislation,” says Pushp. “The states don’t have a choice but to act on it.”

“Why are they just targeting gutkha?” asks C K Sharma, the business head of DS Group’s tobacco division. “There is clearly the cigarette lobby working here. An addict will not give up tobacco just like that. Freeze the gutkha supply and he will turn to cigarettes,” he says. “And why target paan masala which is just dried paan with no tobacco?” he asks. Pushp says gutkha is just the beginning. “The ultimate aim,” he says “is to reduce the consumption of all tobacco products.” He has been participating in some sensitisation programmes against cigarettes as well. In July, he was in Bihar where officers of the rank of deputy superintendent of police have been nominated in districts as nodal officers of the task force to enforce the Cigarettes and Other Products Act — a regulatory act to control the consumption of cigarettes and other such products.

The gutkha industry is, meanwhile, fighting the ban tooth and nail, going to court in practically every state where it’s being targeted. But the Patna and Madhya Pradesh high courts have dismissed their petitions saying that the food safety commissioner has every authority to exercise the power to bangutkha. “This time,” says Pushp, “we are on strong footing.”

QUICK TEST FOR SOME ADULTERANTS IN FOOD

Food safety norms do not apply for haleem

Next time you step out to have a plateful of haleem, you had better think twice. For, a majority of the outlets are not registered with the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) notwithstanding the fact that it is mandatory. What more, the civic body itself hasn’t issued any food safety norms or guidelines for these outlets.
“We had asked all the roadside outlets and establishments with a turnover of less than Rs 12 lakh to complete registration by August 4 but most of them have not done the same. Also we have not set any food safety norms or guidelines as it is a festive affair,” said a GHMC official with the health and sanitation wing on condition of anonymity.
The medical wing of the corporation receives one complaint in 15 days on an average. “There is a definite need to create awareness among people as most of them don’t know that such roadside establishments need to be registered. The general public too don’t know that they can approach the corporation for their grievances,” said the official.
However, the GHMC authorities had conducted surprise raids at various establishments in the city in the last few days and found many were operating in un-hygienic conditions. They had also issued  show-cause notices to Pulla Reddy Sweets and Main Land China in Somajiguda.
When contacted, L Vandan Kumar, additional commissioner (health & sanitation) GHMC, said, “the raids will continue. But we don’t have information on how many establishments are actually registered.” The official felt the Food Safety Commissioner ought to be keeping tabs on these outlets. While the GHMC keeps count of such establishments through HMC (Hyderabad Municipal Corporation) Act, the Food Safety Commissioner is entitled to penalise establishments under the Food Safety Standards Act (FSSA).
For the officials, there’s also the problem of shortage of manpower. “We currently have five food safety officers (FSOs) for 18 circles of the GHMC. But in the erstwhile Muncipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH) area, eight FSOs were sanctioned for seven circles. Going by that, we need 13 more FSOs and we had also submitted our representation to the government regarding this,” the official said.

Gutkha makers ask HC to let them take product outside state

The five companies that had challenged the Maharashtra government’s ban on gutkha on Thursday urged the Bombay High Court to allow them to take the product outside the state. The court had on August 7 directed the government not to destroy the seized packets of gutkha and paan masala till the dispute is resolved.
The companies that have challenged the state government’s decision are Dhariwal Industries Pvt Ltd, Ghodavat Paan Masala Products, Rajnandini Foods Pvt Ltd, SDD Agencies Pvt Ltd and Hira Enterprises. The ban was came into effect through a notification issued by the government on July 19 under the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006.
The companies claimed that gutkha is not consumed for nutritional value and questioned if it could be classified as “food”. They said their business has come to a standstill due to the ban.
Arguing for the petitioners, senior counsel Janak Dwarkadas said such a ban needs to brought in through a legislation. Dwarkadas also contended that gutkha and paan masala were earlier regulated under the Control of Tobacco Products Act (COTPA), 2003, and that the Maharashtra government, through this notification, is invoking the FSSA regulation for these products.
Appearing for the state government, Advocate General Darius Khambata defended the decision, citing health concerns. Khambata said the state government was “completely justified” in putting the ban in place through the FSSA and that the authority had taken the decision in public interest. “Millions of people throughout the country, including youngsters below 15, are addicted to such products,” he said.
Meanwhile, a group of doctors from the Tata Memorial Hospital sought to intervene in the matter in favour of the state government. Their counsel Rajni Iyer on Thursday opposed the demand to allow the packets to be taken outside the state, saying this would amount to “exporting misery”.
The case will now be heard on September 12.