Law: Pure Food Ordinance, 1960

Section: 2(9)(15),3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,18,21

Pure Food Ordinance, 1960-- ----Ss. 2(9)(15), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18 & 21--Tobacco Vend Act 1958, S. 2(e)--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199 Constitutional Petition--Manufacturing and selling of chahliya Masala, etc. Hazardous business--Injurious to Health--Scope of Food Laws--Validity of Statute--Right to sell--Direction to--It was only after such report which necessitated for issuance general direction only to stop sale of hazardous/ articles to health articles/items which otherwise was/is not permissible--It appears that manufacturing, storing, distributing and even selling of Pan Masala requires food additives, likely to be used therein, to be of such standard as required by "Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food additives Regulations, 2011--In other words Tobacco Pan Masala even in India never got an absolute exception 'from operation of Food Laws and Regulations--Now, we can safely conclude that independent status of betel-nut and chewing tobacco to be not falling within meaning of food would not be sufficient for a self-imagined license to sell a mixture thereof with food additives particularly when same are found to be hazardous/injurious to health by allowing expansion of Tobacco Laws and limiting Food Laws--Court is not competent to limit or expand scope of a statute beyond its specified limitations because it is, otherwise, by now a well-established principle of law that hardship of few cannot be basis in determining validity of any statute--Law must be interpreted and applied on its plain language--Let's take plea of sale of other injurious to health products like cigarettes, NASWAR etc. It would suffice to say that cigarettes are clearly governed by specific law while Tobacco Pan Masala does not Cigareites normally are not mixture of tobacco with other food additives same is position with NASWAR therefore, without making much comments, likely to prejudice issue not before us or a room for exercise of suo-moto jurisdiction which Court doesn't, we would say that such plea is not helpful for petitioner as well as Intervener--Petitioner and Intervener are undeniably not growers of tobacco hence for sale of…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492