Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is a registered manufacturer of vegetable oil products. They are manufacturing the same in the name and style of M/s.Sree Annapurna Agro Foods. In this writ petition, they have chosen to challenge the Rule 7(2) of the Blended Edible Vegetable Oils (Grading and Marking) Rules, 1991 so far as it prevents the use of common or generic name of the oils used for preparation on the package or containers of the trade article as ultra vires of the provisions of the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Act, 1937 and other enactments dealing with the subject issue besides being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and consequently to forbear the respondents from in any manner restricting the petitioner from using the common or generic name of the oil on the container, receptacle, pouches, packages, etc., in marketing the blended edible vegetable oils. 2. This writ petition when it came up for admission on 16.9.2010, Mr.Velayutham Pichaiya, learned Senior Central Government Standing counsel led by Mr.Raveendran, learned Additional Solicitor General of India took notice and sought time to file counter. Subsequently, the matter was adjourned for several times to enable the respondents to file counter. Initially, a counter affidavit dated 23.9.2010 was filed by the second respondent sworn to by the Senior Marketing Officer. Notwithstanding the counter affidavit and instead of taking the main matter, this court had passed an interim order on 19.1.2011 which is as follows : "2. This Court, taking into consideration the rival submissions, is passing the following order: The petitioner, in the label, is permitted to use the following words in English as well as in vernacular language: Blended vegetable oil with mixture of gingelly / coconut / mustard or any other oil with the flavour and taste. “TAMIL” In the rear portion of the label also, it should be indicated in bold letters the contents and mixture of the respective vegetable oils so that the consumers shall be aware of the mixture, content and taste of the oil they are going to purchase. The miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly." Subsequently, an another counter affidavit, dated 27.03.2012 was filed by the second respondent sworn to by the Assistant Agricultural Marketing Advisor. 3. The miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly." Subsequently, an another counter affidavit, dated 27.03.2012 was filed by the second respondent sworn to by the Assistant Agricultural Marketing Advisor. 3. Heard the arguments of Mr.R.Krishnamurthy, learned Senior counsel appearing for Mr.V.Ayyaduai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Velayutham Pichaiya, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel. The respondents have also filed a written submission. In order to find out that after passing the interim order whether the petitioner had complied with the interim order, this court directed the petitioner to file an affidavit to that effect and also to produce a copy of the label affixed in the container selling vegetable oils. Accordingly, an affidavit was filed on 24.7.2012 stating that they have complied with the interim order in letter and spirit and that a sample of the label was also produced. The petitioner is marketing their products in three different names, i.e., Annapurna, Dr.Samy 'n' Gold and Cycle brand. It is necessary to refer to one of the label relating to the Gingelly Oil. The front side of the sample label was shown as follows : Agmark Annapurna “TAMIL” Blended Edible Vegetable Oil Taste of GINGELLY OIL “TAMIL” The rear side of the sample label is shown as follows : “TAMIL” Blended Edible Vegetable Oil Taste of GINGELLY OIL 4. Therefore, what is marketed is though the blended edible vegetable oil, but it was shown in the generic name as Gingelly Oil. The world "Gingelly Oil" was printed in bold letters where as the sentence "Blended Edible Vegetable Oil) was shown in small types. The picturistic description shown "Sesame" prominently. In case of Groundnut oil, the groundnuts were shown. The contents and the mixture of other vegetable oil were not revealed in the label. This kind of picturistic representation and giving the generic name as Gingelly Oil will clearly mislead the people and many time times the common persons would be duped. To prove this fact, the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel produced ½ Kg quantity of the product marking by them which was purchased from one Sri Kannan Departmental Store (P) Ltd.,, Sathy Road Branch, Erode and the bill showed the item as Gingelly Oil. In the light of these developments, the challenge made by the petitioner to the regulations will have to be considered. 5. In the light of these developments, the challenge made by the petitioner to the regulations will have to be considered. 5. The Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Act, 1937 was enacted for dealing with the prescription and protection of merchandise marks falling with Entry 49 of List 1 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Subsequently, the Act was amended by the Central Act 76/1986 and Sections 5A, 5B and 5C were introduced. Section 5A provides for penalty for selling misgraded articles. Section 5B provides for prescription of compulsory grade designations in respect of certain articles which are mentioned in the schedule. Section 5C provides for institution of prosecution. In the Schedule prescribed under Section 2 of the Act, the Entry No.11 includes Vegetable oils including hydrogenated oils and vegetable fats. By the amendment, the Central Government was authorized to make rules fixing grade designation to indicate the quality of any scheduled article, denning the quality indicated by every grade designation, specifying the grade designation mark to represent particular grade designation authorizing interested parties to grade, specifying conditions regarding manner of marking, packaging and providing for the confiscation and disposal of the produce marked otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed conditions with a grade designation mark. The insignia used for grading is 'AGMARK”. Grading under this Act is purely voluntary in nature. There were complaints received about the quality of Agmarked goods. In order to protect the interest of the consumers and to ensure that there is no misgrading of articles, the amendments were made by the Amendment Act 76 of 1986. By the amendment, the Central Government wants to ensure that the misgraded article is proposed to be defined as one not of the quality prescribed for the grade designation with which it is marked and also to provide punishment for unauthorised or improper marking with grade designation mark. 6. The term “covering” under this Act includes any vessel, box, crate, wrapper, tray or other container. The term “quality” is defined to mean in relation to any article includes the state and condition of the article. 6. The term “covering” under this Act includes any vessel, box, crate, wrapper, tray or other container. The term “quality” is defined to mean in relation to any article includes the state and condition of the article. The article will be said to be misgraded as defined under Section 2(j) of the Amendment Act which reads as follows : “(j) an article is said to be misgraded if,- (i) the article is not of the quality prescribed for the grade designation with which it is marked; (ii) the composition of the article offered for grading is altered in any way after a sample has been drawn for analysis and determination of the grade designation of the article in accordance with the rules made under this Act; (iii) the article is tampered with in any manner; and (iv) any false claim is made for the quality prescribed for its grade designation, upon the label or through advertisement or in any other manner.” 7. It is pursuant to the amendments made to the Act, the regulations have been framed known as Blended Edible Vegetable Oils (Grading and Marking) Rules, 1991. The rules are made applicable to all blended edible vegetable oils. Under Rule 5, the grade designation mark has to be made in certain contingencies. Rule 5 reads as follows : “5. Grade designation mark:- The grade designation mark shall consist of:- (1)a label specifying name of the commodity, grade designation and bearing the design consisting of an outline map of India with the word 'Agmark' and the figure of rising sun resembling the one as set out in the Schedule II; or (2)'Agmark replica' consisting of a design incorporating the number of certificate of authorisation, the word 'Agmark' name of commodity and grade designation resembling the one specified in schedule-III: Provided that the use of Agmark replica in lieu of Agmark labels shall be allowed only to such authorised packers who have be granted the permission by the Agricultural Marketing adviser or an officer authorised in this regard and subject to sub conditions as may be specified from time to time.” 8. Since Rule 7(2) is under challenge, it is necessary to extract Rule 7 which reads as follows : “7. Since Rule 7(2) is under challenge, it is necessary to extract Rule 7 which reads as follows : “7. Method of marking;-1) The grade designation mark shall be securely affixed to or clearly and indelibly printed on each container as prescribed by the Agricultural Marketing Adviser; 2) The packages of graded blended edible vegetable oil shall not be marked by any common or generic name of the oils used. Each package shall be prominently marked in bold letters with colour contrast to read:- BLENDED EDIBLE VEGETABLE OILS This blended edible vegetable oils contains an admixture of (i) _____________% by weight (ii) _____________% by weight (Named and nature of edible vegetable oils, i.e. in raw or refined form) Date of packing ......................... In addition, following particulars shall be clearly and indelibly marked on each container,- (a)Name of the packer (b)Date of packing - (c)Place of packing = (d)Lot /Batch/Tank fill number - (e)Net weight. (4) The authorised packer may, with the approval of the Agricultural Marketing Adviser or an officer authorised in this regard, mark his private marks or trade marks provided that the same do not indicate quality other than that indicated by the grade designation mark affixed to the graded packages.” 9. The petitioner company is aggrieved about the rule which was enacted in the year 1991. But no challenge was made for over 19 years. It is only when the second respondent informed the petitioner company by the impugned communication, dated 7.6.2010, they have chosen to come to this court. The communication sent by the second respondent, dated 7.6.2010 reads as follows : “Sub: Discrepancies in the TBL of Agmark Replica bearing containers of Blended Edible Vegetable Oil – regarding. Gentlemen, It has been observed during the check sampling from the market in the month of May 2010 that the poly pouches containing Blended Edible Vegetable Oils have been marked as Gingelly Oil (both in Tamil and English) relatively bolder and in colour contrast along with Refined Rice Bran oil. In this connection, your attention is drawn to the Rule 7(2) of the Blended Edible Vegetable Oils Grading and Marking Rules, 1991 (copy enclosed). Accordingly, packages should not be marked by any common or generic name of the oils used other than Blended Edible Vegetable Oils in bold letters with colour contrast. In this connection, your attention is drawn to the Rule 7(2) of the Blended Edible Vegetable Oils Grading and Marking Rules, 1991 (copy enclosed). Accordingly, packages should not be marked by any common or generic name of the oils used other than Blended Edible Vegetable Oils in bold letters with colour contrast. As such, violations of the said Grading and Marking Rules have occurred on your part and that needs to be rectified immediately. Therefore, you are requested to send a compliance report with regard to rectification of the above discrepancies and explain the reasons for such serious lapses within 14 days from date of receipt of this letter.” 10. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner had not complied with the said rules for over 19 years. Only when it was pointed out, they have approached this court and that too by taking advantage of the interim order, they had printed in the wrapper as noted above. This court, as noted above, did not grant stay of the impugned rules. Further, taking advantage of the interim order, they have made new wrappers, even where the term "blended edible vegetable oil" was shown in small types, whereas the generic name, i.e., Gingelly Oil and Groundnut oil were shown prominently and in bold letters, thereby making the consumer to buy their products as if they were purchasing either gingelly oil or the groundnut oil. In a country of many illiterate persons, such a picturistic description and the generic term will clearly dupe the common man as can be seen from the product purchased by the respondent along with the bill shown to this court. They have also not shown the ratio of mixture of two oils and that they have violated the rule for the last 19 years. 11. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner contended that they are the registered packer in terms of the Vegetable Oil Products (Regulation) Order, 1998 framed in terms of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. They were also issued with a certificate of Authorisation in terms of the General Grading and Marking Rules, 1988 and the Blended Edible Vegetable Oils (Grading and Marking) Rules, 1991. The object of the Act is to prescribe grade designation as indicative of the quality of any scheduled article and grade designation of the said article representing a particular grade designation. The object of the Act is to prescribe grade designation as indicative of the quality of any scheduled article and grade designation of the said article representing a particular grade designation. There is no scope to frame any rules with reference to the manner of advertising for the goods in the label, thereby preventing the display of the contents of the commodity, which in fact is in consonance of the statutory requirements. However, the impugned rule 7(2) prohibits the use of common or generic name of the oil used in the manufacturing process and infringes the fundamental right of the petitioner as enshrined in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The blending of edible vegetable oil involves admixture of a base oil, i.e., refined cotton seed oil, refined palmolein oil, refined rice bran oil and a dominant characteristic oil such as Gingelly oil, groundnut oil, refined sunflower oil in the prescribed ratio. There is no rationale to prohibit the manufacturer to print the common or generic name of the oil in their product by virtue of the impugned rule. There is no nexus said to be achieved in the object or to eradicate the mischief of any misbranding of the article. Hence the impugned rule is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 12. Further, it was contended that the rule is also beyond the scope of rule making power provided under the Parent Act. The object of the Act is to provide for grading and marking of products with reference to prescribed standard and the use of the name "Agmark" associated with the private trade brand label. The prohibition imposed by the impugned rule is unreasonable. There is likelihood of implementing the provisions of the Good Safety and Standard Act, 2006 which is a comprehensive legislation concerning with all food articles. The petitioner had invested an huge amount in the business. The advertisement is an inevitable one for promotion of any trade or business. 13. In the counter affidavit filed, it was stated that Rule 49(21) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 stipulates that the blended edible vegetable oil shall not be sold under the common or generic name of the oil used in the blend. The advertisement is an inevitable one for promotion of any trade or business. 13. In the counter affidavit filed, it was stated that Rule 49(21) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 stipulates that the blended edible vegetable oil shall not be sold under the common or generic name of the oil used in the blend. It can be sold as Blended Edible Vegetable Oil and sealed packages shall be sold or offered for sale only under the Agmark certification ark bearing label declarations as provided under Rule 42 and Rule 44. Rule 44 prohibits the sale of certain admixtures provided that the prohibition in respect of any admixture of any two edible vegetable oils as an edible vegetable oil where the proportion by weight of any vegetable oil used in the admixture is not less than 20% by weight. The admixture of edible vegetable oils is processed or packed and sold by the department of Civil Supplied, Government of India or by agencies in public, private in sealed packages weighing not more than 15 litres under the Agmark certification mark compulsorily and bearing the label declaration as laid down under Rule 42(zz). The petitioner had obtained the certificate of Authorization from the second respondent for grading and marking vegetable oils such as refined Sunflower oil, refined Groundnut oil, Refined cotton seed oil, refined rice bran oil, gingelly oil, groundnut oil and Castor oil under Agmark through the office of the Agricultural Officer (Chemistry), State Agmark Grading Laboratory-I, Erode which is valid upto 31.3.2014. The petitioner had also obtained another Certification of Authorization from the second respondent for grading and marking Blended Edible Vegetable oil under Agmark through their own laboratory at Erode, which is also valid upto 31.3.2014. The maximum retail price of Gingelly oil is Rs.85/-, whereas the maximum retail price of the blended edible vegetable oil is Rs.120/- for the same quantity. 14. According to the Trade Brand Label (TBL) submitted along with the application, the petitioner had given a different one in compliance with the impugned rule and the said label had only been taken into record by the respondents. The said specimen had the name of the commodity as Blended Edible Vegetable Oil only and marking of either "Gingelly Oil or "Cooking Oil" did not find a place there. The petitioner had two different certificates of Authorization for two different commodities. The said specimen had the name of the commodity as Blended Edible Vegetable Oil only and marking of either "Gingelly Oil or "Cooking Oil" did not find a place there. The petitioner had two different certificates of Authorization for two different commodities. By that, it is not only creating confusion in the mind of the general public and consumer, but also they are cleverly trying to manipulate the same by undue and unlawful advantage by misleading the general public, the Government machinery and this Court. When the Trade Brand Label shows the commodity as one thing, in reality the content of the same is something different whose nomenclature is nothing but misbranding as contemplated under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as well as Section 2(j) of the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Act, 1937. The rule only prohibits the manufacturer from using the common or generic name of the oils used in the case of blended edible vegetable oil. 15. Further, the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is an Act to consolidate the laws relating to food and to establish the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India for laying down science based standards for articles of food and to regulate their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import and to ensure the availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption. The Act came into force with effect from 23.8.2006. Section 97 of the Act seeks to repeal various enactments specified in the II Schedule. The repeal did not include the impugned rule. Apart from the same, over riding effect is given under Section 89 of the Act which is also subject to certain restrictions as specified in the proviso to Section 97 of the Act. Since the impugned rule has been framed in the light of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955, i.e., Section 42(zz), 44 and 49(21), the question of any legislative competency did not arise. The prohibition of the use of the common or generic name of the components in the blended edible vegetable oil is for a simple reason that if any one of the particular components' name is used, it will be violation of the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 as well as 1937 Act. The prohibition of the use of the common or generic name of the components in the blended edible vegetable oil is for a simple reason that if any one of the particular components' name is used, it will be violation of the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 as well as 1937 Act. The rule does not prohibit the printing of contents of the mixture in the Trade Brand Label, but only prevents the manufacturer from naming the commodity by using the generic or common name of any of the constituents. The question of invoking of Article 19(1)(g) is misconceived. The rule has been enacted with an idea of taking care of the public interest, health and prevention of fraud and other similar considerations. The words "Gingelly oil" prominently printed on the body of the TBL creates confusion in the mind of general public or consumer that the vegetable oil in the container is really the gingelly oil and not the blended edible vegetable oil. The petitioner is cleverly trying to manipulate the same by undue and unlawful advantage by misleading the general public. The specimen submitted only shows the commodity as one thing, but in reality the content of the same is something different and false claim has been made in contravention of Section 2(j) of the 1937 Act. 16. A copy of the communication sent by the petitioner to the second respondent, dated 19.6.2010 was also produced wherein the petitioner had requested the second respondent as follows : "With respect to your letter dated 07.06.2010 we came to know that above said matter, we have to inform you that we have already stock of above film roll for further 4 (Four) months use. If we alter the pouch design we get loss upto Rs.5 to 6 lakhs (Rupees five to six lakhs) for the value of stock materials and change of cylinder expenses. So we humbly request you to give us 3 months time to clear the above said stock (Pouches) from this month. This is for your kind information and perusal." 17. Notwistanding the communication, now with the strength of the interim order, they are continuing to violate the impugned rule. In the written arguments, the second respondent had reiterated the same contentions. 18. This is for your kind information and perusal." 17. Notwistanding the communication, now with the strength of the interim order, they are continuing to violate the impugned rule. In the written arguments, the second respondent had reiterated the same contentions. 18. It was argued by the respondents that in order to challenge the Act as ultravires of Article 14, it has to satisfy several tests. The Supreme Court in Javedv. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 8 SCC 369 , in paragraph 8 had observed as follows : "8. It is well settled that Article 14 forbids class legislation; it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. To satisfy the constitutional test of permissibility, two conditions must be satisfied, namely: (i) that the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (ii) that such differentia has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The basis for classification may rest on conditions which may be geographical or according to objects or occupation or the like. (See Constitution Bench decision in BudhanChoudhry v. State of Bihar2.) The classification is well defined and well perceptible. Persons having more than two living children are clearly distinguishable from persons having not more than two living children. The two constitute two different classes and the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia clearly distinguishing one from the other. One of the objects sought to be achieved by the legislation is popularizing the family welfare/family planning programme. The disqualification enacted by the provision seeks to achieve the objective by creating a disincentive. The classification does not suffer from any arbitrariness. The number of children viz. two is based on legislative wisdom. It could have been more or less. The number is a matter of policy decision which is not open to judicial scrutiny." 19. It was further argued that the petitioner had not contended of any hostile discrimination, because the manufacturers of all edible vegetable oil have been treated same and the rule applies to all of them. Further there was discrimination against the petitioner has not been proved. In this context, a reference was made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Balaram Sahu reported in (2003) 1 SCC 250 . Further there was discrimination against the petitioner has not been proved. In this context, a reference was made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Balaram Sahu reported in (2003) 1 SCC 250 . In paragraph 13, the Supreme Court had observed as follows : "13.....The fact that no materials were placed before the High Court as to the nature of duties of either categories should have been viewed as a disentitling factor so far as the workers are concerned and dissuaded the High Court from embarking upon an inquiry in the abstract and with no factual basis and not to empower the court to assume and presume equality in the absence of proof to the contra or of any unequal nature of the work performed by them. To claim a relief on the basis of equality, it is for the claimants to substantiate a clear-cut basis of equivalence and a resultant hostile discrimination before becoming eligible to claim rights on a par with the other group vis-à-vis an alleged discrimination....." 20. With reference to the argument based on Article 19(1)(g), the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel stated that reasonable restriction can be imposed by law and it has to be adjudged in the nature of right, danger or injury which may be inherent in the unbridled exercise of the right and the necessity of protection against danger which may result to the public by the exercise of the right. A reference was made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Himmatbhai Narbheram Rao reported in (1969) 2 SCR 392 = AIR 1970 SC 1157 . The following passage found in paragraph 12 of the said judgment was relied which reads as follows : "12. Reasonableness of restriction imposed by a law has to be adjudged in the light of the nature of the right, danger or injury which may be inherent in the unbridled exercise of the right and the necessity of protection against danger which may result to the public by the exercise of the right. In each the test is whether the restriction is commensurate with the need of protection of the interest of the public against the exercise of the right. ....." 21. In each the test is whether the restriction is commensurate with the need of protection of the interest of the public against the exercise of the right. ....." 21. Further reference was made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in M.R.F. Ltd. v. Inspector Kerala Govt., reported in (1998) 8 SCC 227 . The test of reasonableness of the restrictions has to be seen keeping in mind the following parameters as found in paragraph 13 of the said judgment, which reads as follows: "13. On a conspectus of various decisions of this Court, the following principles are clearly discernible: (1) While considering the reasonableness of the restrictions, the court has to keep in mind the Directive Principles of State Policy. (2) Restrictions must not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature so as to go beyond the requirement of the interest of the general public. (3) In order to judge the reasonableness of the restrictions, no abstract or general pattern or a fixed principle can be laid down so as to be of universal application and the same will vary from case to case as also with regard to changing conditions, values of human life, social philosophy of the Constitution, prevailing conditions and the surrounding circumstances. (4) A just balance has to be struck between the restrictions imposed and the social control envisaged by clause (6) of Article 19. (5) Prevailing social values as also social needs which are intended to be satisfied by restrictions have to be borne in mind. (See: State of U.P. v. Kaushailiya7.) (6) There must be a direct and proximate nexus or a reasonable connection between the restrictions imposed and the object sought to be achieved. If there is a direct nexus between the restrictions and the object of the Act, then a strong presumption in favour of the constitutionality of the Act will naturally arise. (See: KavalapparaKottarathil Kochuni v. States of Madras and Kerala8; O.K. Ghosh v. E.X. Joseph9.)" In the light of the above, the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel requested for dismissal of the writ petition. 22. A careful perusal of the rival contentions clearly show that the impugned rule is intended to achieve public good and has been enacted in public interest. It is intra vires of 1937 Act. 22. A careful perusal of the rival contentions clearly show that the impugned rule is intended to achieve public good and has been enacted in public interest. It is intra vires of 1937 Act. The petitioner having taken licence not only to sell the generic or common name items, but also to sell the blended edible vegetable oil, cannot be allowed to mislead the public with dubious Trade Brand Label. In fact, in the earlier letter, they themselves sought for time to exhaust the existing labels to switch over the trade in tune with the impugned rules. In fact, the rules have been in force for several years. It is shocking to note that the petitioner is able to show Nelson's eye to the rule and doing their business unmindful of the restrictions imposed. The interim order given cannot be taken as a final order. Even the interim order has been cleverly manipulated by the petitioner by printing letters in different types so that the common man can be deceived. The items purchased and the bill produced clearly shows that the petitioner is intended to dupe the common public by misleading the Trade Brand Label. 23. This court do not find any case is made out to interfere with the impugned rules. It is constitutionally valid and hence this court upholds it in the light of the public interest. The other arguments to interfere with the other provisions of the Act also does not stand to reason. The petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by trading their commodity in the real name and also showing the description of mixtures of various oils in their label. Hence the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs.