Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr. Iqbal Chagla, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, Mr. Anil Singh, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. Mehmood Pracha, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. Issue notice to Respondents, returnable on 30th June, 2015. Mr. Anil Singh, the learned Advocate General waives service on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Mr. Pracha, the learned Counsel waives service on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 3. By this Petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is challenging the order dated 05/06/2015 passed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India and also the order dated 06/06/2015 issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety, State of Mahararashtra. 4. Petitioner – Company is a subsidiary of NESTLE S.A. Of Switzerland and is carrying on business of manufacturing food products. The Petitioner has been manufacturing and selling food product which is known as 'MAGGI' for the last 30 years. Sometime in May, 2015, certain samples of the food products which were being sold were tested initially in Utter Pradesh and later on at Calcutta when an appeal was filed by the Petitioner and also at Delhi. According to the Respondents, in the products, presence of lead was found which was in excess of the maximum permissible level of 2.5 ppm (parts-per-million). Secondly, it was found that the Label which was affixed on the said product was misleading since it mentioned that it contained “No added MSG” and thirdly, the contention was that the release of non-standardized food product in market viz “Maggi Oats Masala Noodles with Tastemaker” was without risk assessment and without obtaining product approval from the concerned authority. 5. Mr. Iqbal Chagla, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that firstly both the impugned orders were passed without giving formal show cause notice. It was secondly submitted that the said order was passed by the authorities who had no jurisdiction to pass the said orders. Thirdly, it was submitted that, factually, when the products were tested, procedure which was required to be followed for testing these products was faulty and, therefore, the order passed on such improperly testing of products was liable to be set aside. 6. Thirdly, it was submitted that, factually, when the products were tested, procedure which was required to be followed for testing these products was faulty and, therefore, the order passed on such improperly testing of products was liable to be set aside. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner then submitted that shelf life of these products is about 9 months from the date of manufacture. It was submitted that, in the present case, some of the products were manufactured in January 2014 and shelf life of the said products was upto 15th September, 2014. However, the products was tested between January 2015 and March, 2015. It was further submitted that during this entire period of three months samples were not sealed and, therefore, result of such product analysis was completely faulty and could not be relied upon. It was also pointed out that when the sample of the three products sent to Chemical Analyser in Delhi, the sample showed that the level was within the particular limits and in respect of the other products the levels varied. It was therefore submitted that the standard of testing which was done by the authority was not reliable and, therefore, on the basis of such analysis, a drastic order of banning the entire product was completely arbitrary, unconstitutional and, therefore, the said order was liable to be set aside. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner invited our attention to the various provisions of the Food Safety and Standards, 2006 and more particularly sections 16, 18, 22 as also Section 30 and 34 amongst other provisions of the said Act in support of the said submission. 7. Lastly, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that after having imposed the ban, Petitioner had been asked to show cause why product approval which was granted in respect of 8 of the 9 products should not be cancelled. It was submitted that Respondents having prejudged the issue, the procedure of the inquiry in respect of cancelling the product approval was completely arbitrary. He then submitted that the Petitioners had already given a Press Release in which Petitioner in terms has stated as under:- “PRESS RELEASE NESTLE HOUSE, Gurgaon, 5th June, 2015, MAGGI Noodles are completely safe and have been trusted in India for over 30 years. The trust of our consumers and the safety of our products is our first priority. He then submitted that the Petitioners had already given a Press Release in which Petitioner in terms has stated as under:- “PRESS RELEASE NESTLE HOUSE, Gurgaon, 5th June, 2015, MAGGI Noodles are completely safe and have been trusted in India for over 30 years. The trust of our consumers and the safety of our products is our first priority. Unfortunately, recent developments and unfounded concerns about the product have led to an environment of confusion for the consumer, to such an extent that we have decided to withdraw the product off the shelves, despite the product being safe. We promise that the trusted MAGGI Noodles will be back in the market as soon as the current situation is clarified.” It was submitted that pursuant to the press release, Petitioners had started process of removing of the said products off the shelf, though, according to the Petitioner, the product was completely safe for human consumption. It was submitted that the Petition may be heard finally at the stage of admission. 8. Mr. Anil Singh, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State invited our attention to the various provisions of the Act and submitted that the question of giving a separate notice in such cases did not arise and the authorities in cases of emergency could pass the order of banning of product without giving personal hearing. He submitted that, in the present case, Representations were made by the Petitioner and they were considered and thereafter the impugned orders have been passed. He invited our attention to the order passed by the Central Authority – Respondents 1 and 2 and also the Commissioner of Food Safety – Respondent No.4. He also invited our attention to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Dhariwal Industries Ltd and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2013(1) Mh. L.J. 461) in support of his submissions. 9. Mr. Pracha, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the Central Authorities were bound to take action without notice since the products contained levels of Lead which was in excess than the prescribed standard. He invited our attention to Section 22 of the said Act. He further submitted that the some of the Petitioners had challenged the Advisories which were issued by Respondent Nos. He invited our attention to Section 22 of the said Act. He further submitted that the some of the Petitioners had challenged the Advisories which were issued by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by which the directions were given to all the manufacturers to obtain product approval. He submitted that Division Bench of this Court had held that the said Advisories did not have force of law since the provisions of sections 92 and 93 of the said Act had not been complied with since these Advisories/Regulations were not placed before the Parliament. He submitted that, however, the judgment and order of this Court had been stayed by the Apex Court and the matter was posted for hearing in the month of July, 2015. He submitted that the question of granting stay to these orders does not arise. 10. After hearing all the Counsels on either side at length, we are of the view that the Respondents should file a detailed affidavit in reply in respect of the averments which are made in the Petition and point out the factual and legal submissions which they propose to make. In our view, since a statement has been made by the Petitioner that the Petitioner – Company has already decided to withdraw its product off the shelf despite their statement that product is safe for human consumption, the question of granting stay to the impugned orders at this stage does not arise. 11. Respondents, however, are at liberty to take all actions permissible in law against the Petitioner in the event they come to the conclusion that the said statement has not been followed. This they shall do after giving 72 hours' notice to the Petitioner. They are at liberty to seize the maggi product if found with the retailers or others. 12. In our view, since the products are being removed and are not being sold in the market, it would be advisable if the procedure regarding cancellation of production approval which has already been granted should not be continued till the next date of hearing. Respondents to file their reply within two weeks. Copy of the reply be given to the Petitioner two days in advance. 13. Place this Petition on board on 30th June, 2015. 14. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.