Judgment :- KANAKARAJ, J.:- These two writ Appeals arise out of writ petitions, W.P. Nos. 30565 and 30566 of 1994 which along with writ petitions, W.P. Nos. 20443,21383 21485 of 1994 and 488 of 1995 were dealt with by a common order by learned Judge and all the writ petitions were dismissed on 10-10-1995. All these writ petitions challenge the validity of the Notification No. VI(2)/206/94 dated: 29-8-1994 issued by the second respondent under Clause (iv) of Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (Central Act 37 1954) (hereinafter called 'the Act'). An amendment was issued to this notification in the Amendment Notification No. VI(2) 13(a)/95 dated: 12-1-1995, by limiting the period of the ban on sale of edible common salt for the period upto 31-12-1999. Learned Judge has set out the pleadings elaborately as well as the arguments advanced before him and has considered the case in all the aspects and from all the angles projeted by the petitioners and found that there was absolutely nothing illegal about the notification banning the sale of edible common salt other than iodised salt for the period upto 31-12-1999. Before us, we have only two appeals filed by the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 30565 and 30566 of 1994. These two petitioners represent these small manufacturers in and around Tuticorin and Tiruchendur, apparently on the belt area between Tuticorin and Tiruchendu. 2. Though the learned Judge has set out the pleadings of all the petitioners, we will briefly refer to the case as put forward by the appellants herein. 3. The members of the appellants society claim to be manufacturers of common salt and holding small extent of Lands ranging from one to nine acres. They set out the method of production of salt by letting out saline water either from see or from water bailed from borewella over clay spread pans and allowed to crystalise. Thereafter the crystalised salt is scrapped and made ready for sale. It is then pointed out that the scheme introduced by the Government of India for universal iodisation was based on certain disorders among the citizens due to iodine deficiency. Primarily the areas prone to iodine deficiency were around the hill regions. Thereafter the crystalised salt is scrapped and made ready for sale. It is then pointed out that the scheme introduced by the Government of India for universal iodisation was based on certain disorders among the citizens due to iodine deficiency. Primarily the areas prone to iodine deficiency were around the hill regions. That is precisely the reason why an earlier notification, issued on 5-5-1993 banned the sale of edible common salt other than or iodised common salt in the Districts of Nilgiris and Tiruchirapalli which were found endemic and to iodine deficiency disorders. Similarly it was found that in the Himalayan Region, the majority of population were found affected by Doitre Endemic disease. The contention of the petitioners is that the impugned notifications violate the freedom of trade and business guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. They also contend that the act under which the notifications were issued does not provide for a total ban of common salt. They complain about the lack of survey in all the Districts of Tamil Nadu and the survey con- cted by the respondents had only disclosed that apart from Tiruchirapalli and Nilgiris about 15 to 30 percentage of the population were found to be suffering from iodine deficiency disorders in the Districts of Dharmapuri, Madurai and Salem. They point out that there is no complete ban in the other States of India. It is next contended that salt is not the only source by which iodine deficiency can be eradicated. There are other vegetables and articles of food which also contain iodine and therefore, it was not necessary to choose common salt as the only food article to be iodised. It was also contended that common salt is not intended for only human consumption, there are various other use of common salt like preservation of fish, use in tanning and fertilizer industry. It is significant to notice that both the appellants had pleaded similar grounds and similar facts for challenging the notification. 4. Separate counter-affidavits had been filed by respondents 1 and 4. In the counter- affidavit of the first respondent, reference is made to the intention of the Government to implement the National Iodine Deficiency Disorder Control Programme by banning the Sale of non-iodised salt. 4. Separate counter-affidavits had been filed by respondents 1 and 4. In the counter- affidavit of the first respondent, reference is made to the intention of the Government to implement the National Iodine Deficiency Disorder Control Programme by banning the Sale of non-iodised salt. They point out that due to soil erosion deficiency of iodine in Micro Nutrient in small quantities which are required in any diet intake for maintaining health, and avoiding iodine deficiency which leads to Goitre, Mental Retardation, Abortion etc., had been detected. The deficiency was first noticed in randum surveys conducted in Tiruchirapalli District and Nilgiris District and hence a notification was issued on 5-5-1993 banning the sale of non-iodised salt in those District. Thereafter surveys were conducted in selected District and the findings were as follows :- Districts Numbers examined All Age Groups Number which goitre percentage Madurai 7137 1116 15.5. Dindigul 4355 907 30.8 Salem 7315 2004 27.4 Dharmapuri 4236 686 15.6 5. The easiest method of providing iodine to the people is by addition of iodine to the common salt because it is well-known that common salt is used by all the members of the public, in some form or other for preparing food in any form. The production of iodised salt involves the mixing of a small quantity of Potssium Iodate with common salt by one or more process. 6. It is next contended that the installation of a Plant for Spray mixing iodine would cost only about Rs. 75,000/- to 90,000/- for an installed capacity of 10 to 15 tonnes per hour. The plant can be run by a diesel engine or by electricity and could even be mounted on a mobile chassis on pneumatic wheels. It is admitted that the iodine is imported and there are as many as 30 companies which import iodine and convert the same as Pottassium Iodate and supply to the salt manufacturers. The important contention in the counter-affidavit which has to be noticed is as follows : "The Notification issued in this regard does not prevent the manufacturer of the common salt. The petitioner or any other salt manufacturer can also produce common salt after 1st January 1995. The manufacturer can supply such Salt for Industrial and other non-edible use. The important contention in the counter-affidavit which has to be noticed is as follows : "The Notification issued in this regard does not prevent the manufacturer of the common salt. The petitioner or any other salt manufacturer can also produce common salt after 1st January 1995. The manufacturer can supply such Salt for Industrial and other non-edible use. (i.e., Manufacture of Caustic Soda, Soda ash, water softening, Refrigeration, Fish Curing, Tanning, Agriculture, etc.,) Only when the manufacturer want to sell for edible use, the salt has to be iodised." 7. We have quoted the above stand of the respondents because it answers at least some of the difficulties pointed out by the small manufacturers and removes the apprehension on the part of such small manufacturers. The aim of the Government is said to be, to prohibit the sale of non-iodised edible common salt, with a view to protect the common people and to see that they have sufficient iodine intake. The following abnormalities are likely to occur on account of iodine deficiencies :- 1. Children will be effected by (1) lowered I.Q. 2. Impaired learning and pre-school performance. 3. Mental retardation 4) Delayed Motor devlopment. 5. Growth failure of stunting, lack of energy, Muscular disorder, paralysis, speech defects, hearing defects, similarly adult will be affected by (1) lack of energy (2) Tire easily and (3) Reduced productivity. Further pregnant women will be very much affected by spontaneous abortions still-birth, infant death, interferes with brain development of foetus. Birth of iodine deficient babies-Cretins. The Government has carefully considered the above facts before prohibiting the sale of edible common salt." 8. India is said to be one of the major endemic iodine deficiency countries in the world. There are plenty of goitre positive cases among the people in the Districts of Nilgiris, Salem, Madurai, Dharmapuri, Dindigul-Anna, Tiruchirapalli and Villupuram-Ramaswamy Padayachiar. The highest consultative body namely, the Central Council for Health and Family Welfare has indicated the importance of iodised salt and the necessity to ban the sale of common edible salt other than the iodised salt. Salt is accented to be the most suitable medium for the introduction of iodine into the diet of every common man. It is the only commodity which is universally consumed daily by all sections of society, irrespective of their economic levels. Salt is accented to be the most suitable medium for the introduction of iodine into the diet of every common man. It is the only commodity which is universally consumed daily by all sections of society, irrespective of their economic levels. It has to be noticed that the addition of iodine does not change the colour, taste or odour of common salt, thus making it acceptable to all the people. 9. It is admitted that common salt is not by itself harmful or injurious. The intention of the notification is to make available to the entire population the same common salt mixed with a micro nutrient like iodine to prevent iodine deficiency disorders. The notification is not in violation of Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India because it is in the interest of the public. As already pointed out the manufacture of common salt is not prohibited, and such manufacutre for nonedible purpose is not banned. The provisions of the Act under which the notification has been issued does authorise the competent authority to impose a ban under stated circumstances. It is pointed out that sufficient time had been given to the members of the Association to switch over to the sale all the iodised salt, and the Government have always been extending a helping hand for putting up plants for converting common salt into iodised salt. One other aspect which is brought out in the counter-affidavit is that the State of Tamil Nadu has a capacity to produce 35 lakhs tonnes of common salt whereas the requirement of the Tamil Nadu State in only 3.5 lakhs tonnes. The Manufacturers have traditional markets for the sale of salt to Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and West Bengal. It is however, pointed out that Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and West Bengal have already banned the sale of common salt. The other States also are in the process of imposing a ban partially or absolutely. 10. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondents 3 and 4 it is added that the Government of India has adopted the 'Policy of Universal Salt Iodisation' on sound medical advice. They refer to Resolutions at 39th World Health Assembly (May 1986), the 43rd World Health Assembly (May, 1990) and World Summit for children convened by the United Nations (September 1990) and other such International Conference including the SAARC Conference of Children in South Asia (September 1992). They refer to Resolutions at 39th World Health Assembly (May 1986), the 43rd World Health Assembly (May, 1990) and World Summit for children convened by the United Nations (September 1990) and other such International Conference including the SAARC Conference of Children in South Asia (September 1992). All of whom have considered the question of iodine deficiency and all the participating countries urged to take urgent measures to prevent avoidable brain damage in children and eliminate iodine deficiency disorders by making iodised salt accessible to the entire population by 1995 (emphasis supplied). The contention of the petitioners that there is no ban in other States of Tamil Nadu is refuted by disclosing that there is total ban in most of the States and partial ban in other States as follows :- "TOTAL BAN: Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab Haryana, Delhi, Chandigarh, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, Sikkim, Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Nagaland, Tripura, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Daman and Diu, Dadra and Nager Haveli and Lakshadweep Islands. PARTIAL BAN: Gujarat (16 out of 19 Districts), Maharashtra (17 out of 30 Districts): Karnataka (4 Districts) : Andhra Pradesh (7 Districts) Tamil Nadu (2 Districts) of the above States where a partial ban exists now, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu have issued notifications introducing a State-wide ban from 1st January, 1995. The question of issue of Notifications introducing a State wide ban in Kerala, Karnataka, Goa and Pondicherry is under the active consideration of the respective Governments and such Notifications are likely to be issued effective from early 1995." They also point out that a State wide Health check up of school children organised in July, 1994 has revealed Goitre in most of them in all the Districts. 11. One other aspect which is necessary to notice is the contention that as per existing trade practice in the salt industry, small salt manufactures do not handle the marketing of salt themselves. They sell their produce to the local traders who make their own arrangement for Transport to the market. It is the trader who has to set up the necessary facility for iodisation and in fact, in Tuticorin area itself there are as many as 31 iodisation plants set up by such traders. Even some of the members of the petitioners' Association are doing such conversion. It is the trader who has to set up the necessary facility for iodisation and in fact, in Tuticorin area itself there are as many as 31 iodisation plants set up by such traders. Even some of the members of the petitioners' Association are doing such conversion. The Salt Commisioner to the Government of India had convened a meeting on Salt Manufacturers at Tuticorin on 4-9-1994 to understand their problems and grievances. The Salt Commissioner had assured the procurement of iodisation plants free from UNICEF and supplied the same to the Associations of small salt Manufactures. They had even offered to supply Potassium Iodate for a period of six months to one year. A Second meeting was held on 7-12-1994 for the same purpose. Regarding the availability of iodisation plants the respondents have this to say, "With reference to the averments made in para 16 of the petition, this respondent submits that it is not correct to say that the machinery and equipment needed for production of Iodised Salt costs Rs. 6 lakhs. On the other hand, mobile salt iodisation plants with a production capacity of 15,000 tonnes of iodised salt per year are available even at Tuticorin for a price not exceeding Rs. 1 lakh. simpler "Drip-feed System" plant can be established by merely having a grinding machine and there are number of such dripfeed system plants operating in Tuticorin even in the small-scale sector and by the Members of the Petitioner's Association itself." 12. The facts as disclosed in the affidavits of the respective parties clearly indicate and prove the following:- (i) That iodine deficiency is prevalent in the State of Tamil Nadu leading to several disorders like goitre, mental reardation etc. (ii) That the reduction of iodine deficiences by banning the sale of non-iodised common salt is a recommendation from International Organisations as well as the Central Council for Heath and Family Welfare. (iii) That the best and easiest method of enriching the common people with iodine is through the medium of common salt by banning the sale of non-iodised common salt. (vi) That there is no ban for the manufacture of common salt for non-edible purpose. (v) That iodisation plants are easily available and both the Central and State Governments are anxious to help the traders to install such plants. (vi) That there is no ban for the manufacture of common salt for non-edible purpose. (v) That iodisation plants are easily available and both the Central and State Governments are anxious to help the traders to install such plants. (vi) That the ban of the sale of edible common salt other than iodised salt is in the interest of the public and to prevent the several human disorders which are likely to occur among the public. 13. What remains to be considered is whether the introduction of ban has been made in accordance with law and without violating any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Section 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Though the learned Judge has considered all the legal aspects of the case and has found the notification is not illegal and it is intra vires, we propose to consider the arguments as projected by learned Senior Council Mr. Somayaji, for disposing of the writ appeals. 14. The following points are enumerated but all of them do not really arise for consideration, as we will presently point out:- (i) No power is vested in the Director of Public Health to ban the sale of common salt. (ii) Section 107 A of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939 prescribes the conditions under which the sale of food carn be undertaken or the manner in which the food is prepared or stored. So long as these conditions are satisfied there can be no ban of sale of common salt. (iii) There was no material available for total ban of common salt in all the Districts of Tamil Nadu. (iv) The Act and the Rules framed thereunder prescribed the standard quality of various articles of food in Appendix 'B' to the Rules. So far as edible common salt also there is a prescription and so long as those standards are being followed there cannot be a ban on sale of edible common salt. (v) Entry 58 in List 1 of Article 246 of the Constitution of India provides for the legislation on the manufacture, supply and distribution of sale by Union Agencies and by other Agencies. (vi) Entry 18 of the concurrent list provides for legislation on "adulteration of food stuffs and other goods". Inasmuch as the Central Excise and Salt Act governs the manufacture of salt, the field is occupied by Central enactment. (vi) Entry 18 of the concurrent list provides for legislation on "adulteration of food stuffs and other goods". Inasmuch as the Central Excise and Salt Act governs the manufacture of salt, the field is occupied by Central enactment. Section 7 of the Act in terms does not enable the authorities to prohibit the sale of edible common salt unless it is iodised. 15. We are of the opinion that though learned Senior Counsel has enumerated the above points in pith and substance, the only argument that has to be countenanced is whether Section 7 of the Act enables the Director of Public Health to ban the sale of edible common salt other than iodised salt in the manner in which it has been done. This is because Section 7 of the Act does authorise the Food Health Authority to prohibit the sale of any article of food. As rightly pointed out by learned single Judge, Salt is an article of food within the meaning of Section 2(iv) of the Act and Food Health Authority means the Director of Medical and Health Services or Chief Officer-in-charge of Health Administration in the State by whatever designation he is known and includes any officer empowered by Notification in the Official Gazette to exercise the powers and performing the duties of the Food Health Authority under the Act. In this view of the matter, the first point deserves no consideration. Second and fourth points do not at all advance the case of appellants because the fact that conditions are prescribed for granting licence for preparation of food and sale of the same and the fact that standards are prescribed for the manufacture of edible common salt do not impede the competent authorities to exercise their power under Section 7(iv) of the Act for prohibiting the sale of any article of food in the interest of the public. So far as the material available for the imposition of the ban, we have already referred to the surveys made by the authorities and as rightly pointed out by learned Judge the Government need not wait till the entire State becomes endemic to iodine deficiency disorders. So far as the material available for the imposition of the ban, we have already referred to the surveys made by the authorities and as rightly pointed out by learned Judge the Government need not wait till the entire State becomes endemic to iodine deficiency disorders. The argument based on the field of legislation relating to manufacture, supply and distribution of salt by Union Agencies or other Agencies, being occupied by the Central Government, does not convey any meaning because both the enactments are enacted by the Parliament. Therefore, with reference to Entry 18 of List III, it is only Central Government which has enacted the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and within the scope of the said Act, it is certainly open to the Government to prohibit the sale of any article of food in the interest of public health. 16. We will now deal with the substantive argument based on Section 7 of the Act and other provisions of the Act. The argument of Mr. Somayati is that if the sale of an article of food is prohibited, it tantamounts a prohibition on the manufacture of the said article of food. This argument cannot be accepted because Section 7 only says that no person shall manufacture for sale or store, sell or distribute etc. The emphasis is on the manufacture for sale of an article of food which is adulterated, misbranded or prohibited by the authorities. It is next contended that Section 7(iv) of the Act cannot be taken as the source of power for prohibiting an article of food. For this purpose reference is made to Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. The argument under Section 23 of the Act is that the Central Government can make Rules for prohibiting the sale or defining the conditions of sale of any substance which may be injurious to health when used as food under Clause (1-A) (f) of Section 23 of the Act. Therefore, it is pointed out that the Central Government only can prohibit the sale of a substance which is injurious to health when used as food and since common salt by itself is not injurious to health, the impugned notification cannot be sustained. Section 24 of the Act can come into play only in respect of matter not falling within the purview of Section 23 of the Act. Therefore, Mr. Section 24 of the Act can come into play only in respect of matter not falling within the purview of Section 23 of the Act. Therefore, Mr. Somayaji concludes that there is no power to prohibit the sale of article of food which is not by itself injurious to health. No doubt, the argument is attractive, but a careful analysis of provisions of law and the scope and purpose for which the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was enacted shows that the said argument cannot be accepted. The statement of Objects and Reasons for the enactment says that only a concerted and determined onslaught on the prevailing adulteration of food stuffs would bring relief of the nation. They have also suggested that all remedies intended to be effective should be simple in nature. Having this object in mind, it is but reasonable that the authorites decided to prohibit the sale of edible common salt except iodised salt which is, admittedly good for public health. 17. The word "adulterated" is defined in sub-section (ia) of Section 2 of the Act. The word "misbranded" is defined in sub-section (ix) of Section 2 of the Act. Apart from such adulterated or misbranded food, Section 7 of the Act also enables the authority to prohibit any other article of food, the sale of which is against the interest of the public health. The words "for the time being" have been taken care of by amending the notification and limiting the period of prohibition from 1-1-1995 to 31-12-1999. The power of the Food Health Authority to prohibit the sale of any article of food is absolute under Section 7(iv) of the Act. The only consideration is whether it is in the interest of the public health. The circumstances under which the various World Health Organisations and the National Health Organisations (sic) have thought it fit to eradicate iodine deficiency among the public is by way of introducing iodised salt which has been found to be the best medium for the supply of iodine to the common man. The only way of achieving the above object is to prohibit the sale of "edible common salt other than iodised salt". In other words, the sale of edible common salt is prohibited and instead the sale of iodised salt is alone permitted and thus the object of enriching the common man with sufficient iodine requirement is achieved. The only way of achieving the above object is to prohibit the sale of "edible common salt other than iodised salt". In other words, the sale of edible common salt is prohibited and instead the sale of iodised salt is alone permitted and thus the object of enriching the common man with sufficient iodine requirement is achieved. Once the power to prohibit the sale of an article of foot is available, certainly the Authority has the power to permit the very same article of foot after enriching the same with iodine. In fact, it only means that the sale of edible common salt is only banned in a limited manner by permitting the sale of iodised salt. When there is ample material to show that the sale of iodised salt is in the interest of public health to which we have already made a reference, there is no justification at all to nullify such a beneficial notification. In fine, we hold that the impugned notification is perfectly in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause (iv) of Section 7 of the Act. The challenge to the notification therefore, fails. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on a judgment in Municipal Corpn., Ahmedabad v. Jan Mohammed, 1986 AIR(SC) 1205, 1986 CrLR(SC) 385, 1986 (2) CCC 680, 1986 (1) Scale 1180 , 1986 (3) SCC 20 , 1986 (2) SCR 700 , 1986 CRLR 385. We do not find any passage in the said judgment as supporting the case of the appellants. On the other hand, the Apex Court has explained that the words "in the interest of general public" found in Articles 19(1)(g) and 19(6) of the Constitution of India is of wide import comprising public order, public health, public security, moral economic welfare of the community and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution of India. It is needless for us to emphasize that the notification in question is patently for the good of the public in eradicating iodine deficiency disorders which have been found prevalent in various parts of Tamil Nadu. 19. In Bhagwan Das v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1995 AIR(Del) 17 the ban imposed on sale of sugarcane juice in Delhi Municipal Corporation by exercising the power under Section 383 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act was successfully challenged. 19. In Bhagwan Das v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1995 AIR(Del) 17 the ban imposed on sale of sugarcane juice in Delhi Municipal Corporation by exercising the power under Section 383 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act was successfully challenged. But the Court did not uphold the challenge on the question of lack of power but only on the question of lack of pre-requisites for the exercise of the power. In other words, the Court came to the conclusion that the authorities had failed to place before the Court sufficient materials to hold that the sale of sugarcane juice was the cause for the spread of dangerous disease or posing a threat of occurrence of such dangerous disease. Therefore, neither of the above decisions advance the case of the appellants. 20. For all the above reasons we uphold the validity of the impugned notification by concurring with the findings of learned single Judge and on the basis of our own views expressed above. 21. Writ Appeals therefore, fail and they are dismissed. No order as to costs. 22. In view of the above judgment no further or separate orders are necessary in the connection C.M.Ps. Appeals dismissed.