Judgment : Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. The appellant in the MAT is questioning a single Judge decision dated June 30, 2014 allowing the first respondent’s WP No.11545 (W) of 2014 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The first respondent (hereinafter referred to as “Heartland”) imported from Canada edible grade refined oils called Heartland Oliveola Canola Oil Mixture of Canola Oil & Extra Virgin Olive Oil and Heartland Canola Oil both manufactured by one Richardson Oilseed Limited of Canada. The containers concerned reached the Kolkata Port on November 28, 2013 and December 4, 2013. A Food Authority, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, has been established under s.4 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Import clearance of food articles in all ports is looked after by the Food Authority. Under the Food Import Clearance System followed by the Food Authority, Heartland applied to the officer authorised by the Food Authority for NOC. By an email dated December 24, 2013 the officer informed Heartland as follows: – “product approval for canola oil to be obtained from FSSAI Head Quarter New Delhi and the representation has been forwarded to New Delhi.” Since the authorised officer was not taking samples of the articles, Heartland moved this court by filing a WP No.2251 (W) of 2014 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By an order dated January 24, 2014 a single Judge disposed of the WP directing the Food Authority “to expedite the process of clearance.” The Eastern Region Deputy Director of the Food Authority gave a decision dated February 6, 2014 that sampling of the articles would not be allowed, because some major declarations on the labels of the articles did not fulfil the requirements of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011. Feeling aggrieved, Heartland submitted representations stating why the deputy director was wrong and why samples of the articles should be taken for the NOC purpose. Since the authorised officer refused to take the samples, Heartland moved this court for the second time by filing a WP No.8155 (W) of 2014 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By an order dated March 13, 2014 a single Judge disposed of the WP directing the deputy director to consider the grievance Heartland had stated in its lawyer’s notice, hear Heartland and give a decision. By an order dated March 13, 2014 a single Judge disposed of the WP directing the deputy director to consider the grievance Heartland had stated in its lawyer’s notice, hear Heartland and give a decision. The Judge did not say anything about the deputy director’s decision dated February 6, 2014. In compliance with the single Judge order dated March 13, 2014 the deputy director gave a decision dated March 27, 2014. The deputy director disallowed the sampling referring to regs.2.2.2(2), 2.2.2(3)(v)(iii)(sic), 2.4.2(1), 2.4.2(2), 2.4.2(5) and 2.4.2(11) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 and reg.2.3.14(11) of the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011. The deputy director said as follow:- “Looking into the labeling discrepancies the samples cannot be drawn. In light of the above, noncompliance status of labeling requirements/declarations on the labels of imported food articles, sampling is not allowed in this imported consignments.” Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the deputy director dated March 27, 2014 Heartland moved this court for the third time by filing the WP that was allowed by the single Judge by the decision under appeal. In WP para.6 Heartland stated the following case: – “6…….In this regard, your petitioner states that Canola Oil has been allowed to be imported and sold in India, vide Public notification No.49/2009-2014 dated March 18, 2010, as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary (Part 1 Section 1), under Ministry Of Commerce. Canola Oil is being sold from various retail stores and supermarkets by different brands in India and which are 100% imported.” In WP para.9 Heartland stated the following case: –– “9. That your petitioner states that in the Training Manual for Food Safety Regulation, Volume 1, Introduction to Food and Food Processing, issued by the FSSAI, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, it has been categorically mentioned about Canola Oil (Refined imported Rapeseed Oil containing low uric acid) at Page nos.9, 10, 75 and 76 along with other Oils. Canola Oil is very aptly defined to be “…One of the most widely used cooking oil; Canola is a (Trademarked) variety (cultivar) of rapeseed”. Canola Oil is very aptly defined to be “…One of the most widely used cooking oil; Canola is a (Trademarked) variety (cultivar) of rapeseed”. Your petitioner states that the entire sentence denotes that the trademark variety of Rapeseed is called Canola Oil and cultivar variety of Canola is Rapeseed Oil.” Asserting that the declarations on the labels of its imported articles of food were perfect and fulfilled all the requirements of law, and that the deputy director gave the decision without considering the provisions of a notification dated March 23, 2012 laying down the guidelines on food import clearance process by the authorised officer, Heartland prayed for a mandamus commanding the authorised officer to take samples of the articles and send the samples to the food analyst for testing and report for the NOC purpose. By an order dated April 24, 2014 a single Judge entertained the WP, gave directions for affidavits and passed an interim order directing the authorized officer to take samples of the imported articles of food and other necessary steps. The deputy director giving the decision dated March 27, 2014 contested the WP by filing an affidavit-in-opposition dated May 13, 2014. In his AO para.5 the deputy director dealt with Heartland’s case stated in WP paras.5 to 16. He did not say anything about Heartland’s above-quoted cases stated in WP paras.6 and 9. Heartland filed a supplementary affidavit dated June 20, 2014 and in para.4 thereof it stated the following case: – “4. That it is submitted that “Canola” and “Oliveola” are trademark names of low euricic rapeseed oil and blended edible vegetable oils, respectively. There is no prohibition/bar on use of such expressions and the use of the same does not mislead the consumers in any manner whatsoever. There is no mandatory requirement of using the expressions “Imported refined rapeseed oil – low Erucic Acid” and “Blended Edible Vegetable Oil” as contended by the respondents.” The decision of the single Judge dated June 30, 2014 is quoted below: – “Pursuant to order dated 19th June, 2014 the petitioner had served an advance copy of the supplementary affidavit intended to be used by them upon the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by the Saturday next for the said respondents to obtain complete instructions in the matter. Today, Mr. 2 and 3 by the Saturday next for the said respondents to obtain complete instructions in the matter. Today, Mr. Maitra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the said respondents submits that there is no defect in the quality of the oil which the petitioner wants to import. The only problem according to him is that the label does not contain, inter alia, the word “Rapeseed Oil” to explain to the consumer that the product sought to be sold in the name of “Canola Oil” is “Rapeseed Oil”. Annexures to the supplementary affidavit demonstrate that other importers have been allowed to import and sell in the Indian market edible oil by the name “Canola Oil” which do not mention in the label that they have been obtained from “Rapeseed”. Mr. Dutta, learned Senior Advocate appears on behalf of the petitioner submits by drawing attention to page 9 of the supplementary affidavit that additional labeling has been allowed by the said respondents as would appear from the pasted label on the bottom of the bottle containing edible oil which states, inter alia, that the item is “Canola Olive Oil”. He submits that such label giving the particulars including those regarding the product being “Rapeseed Oil”, date of import etc. can be pasted on the packages to overcome the omission. Mr. Maitra, Learned advocate, however submits that the other products that have been allowed into the market have been done so by the said respondents by mistake and steps are being taken against such importers. Such products have been allowed to be sold in the market since the year 2011 and they still continue to be sold. This court, therefore, is unable to accept such submission and on the contrary finds favour with the submission made by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the Indian consumers are aware that “Canola Oil” is vegetable oil. In the circumstances, the letter dated 27thMarch, 2014 impugned in this writ petition is set aside. There will be an order in terms of prayer ‘D’ of the writ petition. The writ petition is allowed to the extent aforesaid. The respondent Nos. In the circumstances, the letter dated 27thMarch, 2014 impugned in this writ petition is set aside. There will be an order in terms of prayer ‘D’ of the writ petition. The writ petition is allowed to the extent aforesaid. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to forthwith consider and approve the label to be stuck on the containers by the petitioner considering that the product is perishable and thereafter the said respondents as well as the customs authorities upon completion of all formalities will allow the petitioner to obtain release of the goods in accordance with law. Mr. Dutta submits that the label for approval of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 will be placed within three days after which they should be deliberated upon, regarding whether any change is required and approval granted within a week thereof. Mr. Maitra, learned advocate prays for stay of operation of the order made. Such prayer is considered and refused. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, will be made available to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.” Mr. Pracha appearing for the appellant has made a lengthy submission, of which the following is the drift:- The single Judge did not examine the correctness of the several reasons the deputy director gave in justification of the decision not to take samples of the articles for the NOC purpose. It was a clear case of incurable major labelling deficiencies. No law entitled Heartland to rectify the deficiencies. This view is supported by an unreported decision of a Division Bench dated September 5, 2014 in APO No.323 of 2014 (Authorized Officer, etc. v. Sarad Kumar Bohra & Ors.). Since Canola oil is not a standardized oil, it was not possible to test its quality. The samples taken under courtorder were tested for ascertaining the features of refined rapeseed oil. The WP was liable to be dismissed. Mr. Dutta appearing for Heartland has also made a lengthy submission whose substance is as follows:- The labels on the articles suffered from no deficiency. The things pointed out by the authorised officer and accepted by the deputy director cannot be any labeling deficiency. In any case, when Heartland was ready to label the articles in the manner the authorised officer suggested, there was no reason for the deputy director to refuse the permission to do that. The things pointed out by the authorised officer and accepted by the deputy director cannot be any labeling deficiency. In any case, when Heartland was ready to label the articles in the manner the authorised officer suggested, there was no reason for the deputy director to refuse the permission to do that. Canola oil is not a new thing to the Food Authority. The Government and the Food Authority previously permitted import of the same Canola oil, which is a trademarked variety of rapeseed oil widely used as cooking oil globally. The single Judge was fully justified in asking the Food Authority to take steps for granting NOC, especially when the test reports did not question the quality. Heartland’s case is fully supported by the unreported Delhi High Court decisions dated August 13, 2014 in WP(C) No.3708 of 2014 (Danisco (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.) and August 20, 2014 (United Distributors Incorporation v. Union of India & Anr.) and an unreported Bombay High Court decision dated September 16, 2014 in WP No.2080 of 2014 (Dalmia Continental Pvt. Ltd. v. FSSAI & Anr.). The pleadings of the parties before the single Judge gave rise to the following issues: – (i) Whether the labels on the articles of food imported by Heartland suffered from any deficiency; (ii) If the labels suffered from any deficiency, whether the deficiency was rectifiable and could be rectified by Heartland; and (iii) Whether the case stated in WP paras.6 and 9 and supplementary affidavit para.4 that the Food Authority previously granted NOCs to importers of same oils still in market entitled Heartland to the NOC. Section 23 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is quoted below: – “23.Packaging and labelling of foods.?(1) No person shall manufacture, distribute, sell or expose for sale or despatch or deliver to any agent or broker for the purpose of sale, any packaged food products which are not marked and labelled in the manner as may be specified by regulations: Provided that the labels shall not contain any statement, claim, design or device which is false or misleading in any particular concerning the food products contained in the package or concerning the quantity or the nutritive value implying medicinal or therapeutic claims or in relation to the place of origin of the said food products. (2) Every food business operator shall ensure that the labelling and presentation of food, including their shape, appearance or packaging, the packaging materials used, the manner in which they are arranged and the setting in which they are displayed, and the information which is made available about them through whatever medium, does not mislead consumers.” Section 25 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is quoted below:– “25. All imports of articles of food to be subject to this Act.? (1) No person shall import into India? (i) any unsafe or misbranded or sub-standard food or food containing extraneous matter; (ii) any article of food for the import of which a licence is required under any Act or rules or regulations, except in accordance with the conditions of the licence; and (iii) any article of food in contravention of any other provision of this Act or of any rule or regulation made thereunder or any other Act. (2) The Central Government shall, while prohibiting, restricting or otherwise regulating import of articles of food under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (22 of 1992), follow the standards laid down by the Food Authority under the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of s.26 of the Act are quoted below:– “(1) Every food business operator shall ensure that the articles of food satisfy the requirements of this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder at all stages of production, processing, import, distribution and sale within the businesses under the control. (2) No food business operator shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture, store, sell or distribute any article of food? (i) which is unsafe; or (ii) which is misbranded or sub-standard or contains extraneous matter; or (iii) for which a licence is required, except in accordance with the conditions of the licence; or (iv) which is for the time being prohibited by the Food Authority or the Central Government or the State Government in the interest of public health; or (v) in contravention of any other provision of this Act or of any rule or regulation made thereunder.” Section 89 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is quoted below: – “89. Overriding effect of this Act over all other food related laws.? Overriding effect of this Act over all other food related laws.? The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.” The authorised officer was to act on the NOC request. He refused to take samples of the imported articles of food on the grounds that there were major labelling deficiencies. In his first decision dated February 6, 2014 the deputy director mentioned the deficiencies. He gave the second decision dated March 27, 2014 in compliance with an order of a single Judge. He heard Heartland and the authorised officer whose every objection he accepted. Under reg.2.2.2(2) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 the containers in which the imported oils were packed were to carry the ingredient information on their labels, unless any one of them was a single ingredient food. Heartland contended that Canola oil was a single ingredient product and hence there was no scope for a list of ingredients; and that the ingredient information of Oliveola was given. The authorised officer accepted that Canola oil was a single ingredient product. Yet he contended that the labels ought to have carried:? for Canola oil – “Edible Refined Rapeseed Oil – Low Erucic acid;” and for Oliveola – “Imported Refined Rapeseed Oil, etc.” Under reg.2.2.2(3)(v)(iv) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 the labels on the containers of the oils were to bear a declaration: ? (i) Total trans fat content not more than … per cent by weight; (ii) Total saturated fat content not more than … per cent by weight; and under reg.2.4.2(1) of the regulations the labels were not to use the expressions “Anti Cholesterol,” “Saturated Fat Free,” etc., or such other expressions. The objection of the authorised officer was that the labels on Heartland’s oil containers bore the impermissible:- “No Cholesterol,” “No Trans Fat,” and “Low in Saturated Fat;” when only “trans fat free” and “saturated fat free” claims would have been permissible, if at all. According to Heartland, the claims borne by the labels were permissible. The objection of the authorised officer was that the labels on Heartland’s oil containers bore the impermissible:- “No Cholesterol,” “No Trans Fat,” and “Low in Saturated Fat;” when only “trans fat free” and “saturated fat free” claims would have been permissible, if at all. According to Heartland, the claims borne by the labels were permissible. Under reg.2.4.2(2) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 every container in which the imported Canola oil was packed was to bear the name, trade name, if any, or description of the oil. According to Heartland, every container bore the trade name “Heartland’s CHOICE,” and the description of the oil “Pure Canola Oil.” According to the authorised officer, the name of the oil, not borne by the containers, was a must. Under reg.2.4.2(4) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 the containers in which the Canola oil and the Oliveola, the blended oil, were packed ought to have borne the following:- the name/description of the contents, “free from Argemone Oil.” The deficiency pointed out by the authorised officer was accepted by Heartland. Under reg.2.4.2(5) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 every container in which the Canola oil was packed was to bear the label: – “Imported Refined (name of the Oil) Oil.” According to Heartland, every container bore: – “Imported from Canada.” According to the authorised officer, every container ought to have borne the label: ? “Imported Refined Rapeseed Oil.” Under reg.2.4.2(11) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 every Oliveola container containing an admixture of an edible oil was to carry the following label:- “This blended edible oil contains an admixture of: (i)…………% by Weight (ii)………..% by Weight.” Name and nature of the edible vegetable oils, i.e. in raw or refined form were to be mentioned. According to Heartland, the containers carried the labels “Refined Canola Oil 80% by Weight,” etc. According to the authorised officer, the containers ought to have carried the labels “Imported Refined Rapseed Oil – low Erucic acid 80% by weight” etc. Regulation 2.3.14(11) of the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011 provided as follows: ? “(11) The Blended Edible Vegetable Oils shall not be sold in loose form. It shall be sold in sealed package weighing not more than 15 litres. Regulation 2.3.14(11) of the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011 provided as follows: ? “(11) The Blended Edible Vegetable Oils shall not be sold in loose form. It shall be sold in sealed package weighing not more than 15 litres. The container having blended edible vegetable oil shall be tamper proof. It shall also not be sold under the common or generic name of the oil used in the blend but shall be sold as “Blended Edible Vegetable Oil”. The sealed package shall be sold or offered for sale only under AGMARK certification mark bearing the label declarations as provided in the regulations besides other labelling requirements under the regulation 2.4.2 of food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011.” Heartland pointed out that labels on its blended oil containers bore the trade name of the food – “Heartland’s Oliveola” and description of the food – “EXTRA VIRGIN OLIVE & CANOLA Pure Blend Oil” and contended that AGMARK certification for the imported blended oil was not possible. According to the authorised officer, the blended edible vegetable oil imported by Heartland could be sold only as “Blended Edible Vegetable Oil,” and under AGMARK certification mark. Heartland contending that the labels on the containers of the oils fulfilled “most of the requirements as per law,” at once requested the deputy director to allow it “to rectify the labeling requirement by pasting a new label that fulfills the requirement.” The deputy director accepting the authorised officer’s view that no law entitled Heartland to rectify the deficiencies, however, mentioned the things that could be rectified by stickers. Thus, the principal question in the WP was whether the deputy director was wrong in accepting the authorised officer’s objections that the labels on Heartland’s imported Canola oil and Oliveola did not fulfill the requirements of the regulations mentioned in his decision dated March 27, 2014. The deputy director’s decision dated March 27, 2014 was in question in the WP. He mentioned the several labelling deficiencies for which samples of the articles were not taken for the NOC purpose. Heartland’s case in the WP was that there was no labelling deficiency, and that the deputy director was wrong in saying that the things pointed out by the authorised officer were labeling deficiencies. He mentioned the several labelling deficiencies for which samples of the articles were not taken for the NOC purpose. Heartland’s case in the WP was that there was no labelling deficiency, and that the deputy director was wrong in saying that the things pointed out by the authorised officer were labeling deficiencies. It is not the decision of the single Judge that the deputy director was wrong in accepting the authorised officer’s objections that the labels did not fulfill the requirements of the regulations. We have stated hereinbefore what decision the deputy director gave. And we find that every labelling deficiency mentioned by the deputy director was a real labelling deficiency detected by the authorized officer while taking steps on Heartland’s NOC application. The real issue before the deputy director was whether the manufacturer had labelled the articles of food manufactured, packed and labelled by it in strict compliance with the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011, not whether Canola oil and rapeseed oil were one and the same. Heartland’s own case is as follows. As to Canola oil, the trade name of the food is “Heartland’s CHOICE” and the description of the food is “Pure Canola Oil;” and as to Oliveola, the trade name of the food is “Heartland’s Oliveola” and the description of the food is “EXTRA VIRGIN OLIVE & CANOLA Pure Blend Oil.” The Food Authority Training Manual for Food Safety Regulators, 2010 – relied on by Heartland – mentions that rapeseed oil is one of the most widely used cooking oils, and that Canola is a (trademarked) variety (cultivar) of rapeseed. The standards that rapeseed oil must conform have been mentioned in the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Stadards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 and in reg.2.2.16(1) of the regulations the vegetable oils from which refined vegetable oil should be obtained have been named; and while rapeseed oil is one of them, Canola oil is not. It is, therefore, evident that Canola oil is not the name of the articles of food Heartland has imported; and that though the oil is a trademarked variety of a type of plant that has been deliberately developed to have the features of rapeseed, its manufacturer, for reasons known to it, decided not to name the food as rapeseed oil. It is, therefore, evident that Canola oil is not the name of the articles of food Heartland has imported; and that though the oil is a trademarked variety of a type of plant that has been deliberately developed to have the features of rapeseed, its manufacturer, for reasons known to it, decided not to name the food as rapeseed oil. As to ingredients, nothing on the labels revealed the names of the foods. Hence it cannot be said that the requirements of reg.2.2.2(2) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 were strictly complied with. The absence of trans fat content and saturated fat content declaration and the presence of “No Cholesterol,” etc. declaration on the labels again contravened regs.2.2.2(3)(v)(iv) and 2.4.2(1) of the regulations. As to the food name, we are unable to accept that the authorised officer was wrong in saying that mere use of the expression “Canola oil” instead of the food name “Rapeseed Oil,” if Canola oil is really rapeseed oil and Oliveola is a blend of rapeseed oil and Olive oil, could not fulfill the mandatory requirements of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011. Absence of the food name contravened the regs.2.4.2(2) and 2.4.2(5) of the regulations. As to name or description of the contents in the containers, absence of the expression “free from Argemone Oil” contravened the reg.2.4.2(4) of the regulations; and the absence of name and nature of one oils of the blended oil contravened the reg.2.4.2(11) of the regulations. And the absence of the expression “Blended Edible Vegetable Oil,” and “AGMARK” clearly contravened the reg.2.3.14(11) of the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011. Heartland had requested the deputy director to allow it to rectify the labelling deficiencies by affixing appropriate labels according to the requirements of the regulations concerned. The deputy director stated his inability on the grounds that the deficiencies were not rectifiable by sticker affixation. The single Judge, it is evident from his decision, accepted Heartland’s case that it was entitled to rectify the deficiencies by affixing appropriate labels. There is no law that entitled Heartland to do the thing. Hence we are unable to accept that the Food Authority officials could be directed to allow Heartland to do it. The single Judge, it is evident from his decision, accepted Heartland’s case that it was entitled to rectify the deficiencies by affixing appropriate labels. There is no law that entitled Heartland to do the thing. Hence we are unable to accept that the Food Authority officials could be directed to allow Heartland to do it. The articles could be re-labelled, if at all, only by their Canadian manufacturer that had labelled them as such. It is not the law that if the imported food articles are found to be safe and wholesome for human consumption, then the Food Authority is bound to grant Heartland NOC, even if their labelling does not fulfil the requirements of the regulations. Such a proposition shall defeat the provisions of s.23 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and make the provisions of the regulations otios. Purpose of labelling is not to be ascertained by anyone for diluting the rigours of the regulations and importing the concept of substantial compliance therewith. It is not that validity of any provision is in issue. Strict compliance principle seems to be the requirements of the regulations dictated by public interest that must prevail over any private interest of an importer. Under s.23 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 it is the Canadian manufacturer of the oils that is liable for everything related to labelling. Only the rectifiable deficiencies mentioned in the decision of the deputy director can be rectified here following the notified procedure. No law permits rectification of the deficiencies in question. What law does not permit, cannot be done by the High Court under Article 226. We are of the view that the authorised officer was fully justified in not taking samples of the articles of food for the NOC purpose on the grounds that the labels on the articles did not fulfil several mandatory requirements of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011. Heartland was not entitled to claim an enforceable right to rectify the labelling deficiencies saying that the government had permitted import of the oils; and that the Food Authority officials had previously granted NOC to others who imported the oils and similar oils, still being sold in the market. Heartland was not entitled to claim an enforceable right to rectify the labelling deficiencies saying that the government had permitted import of the oils; and that the Food Authority officials had previously granted NOC to others who imported the oils and similar oils, still being sold in the market. In view of the provisions of ss.25(2) and 89 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 the government notification permitting import of the oils cannot entitle an importer to deal in the oils, even when their labelling does not fulfill the requirements of the regulations, and any previous illegal grant of NOC to any importer cannot create a right to seek repetition of the illegality. Rectification of a labelling deficiency not permissible under any law cannot be ordered by the High Court in exercise of power under Article 226; and in any case, illegal grant of NOC to any other importer for the same articles of food cannot entitle a subsequent importer to seek NOC. An order for perpetuation of an illegality cannot be passed by the High Court in exercise of power under Article 226. In our opinion, the single Judge not examining the correctness of the several specific reasons given by the deputy director in his decision and allowing the WP on an impermissible basis committed an error of law. We are unable to agree with the views taken by the Delhi and Bombay High Courts in the decisions cited to us. The decision of this court, however, supports the appellant’s case. In our opinion, the WP should have been dismissed. For these reasons, we allow the MAT, dispose of the CAN for stay, set aside the decision of the single Judge and dismiss the WP. No costs.