SHEIKH PROTEINS PVT. LTD. Versus PUNJAB FOOD AUTHORITY, LAHORE

SYED AHSAN RAZA KAZMI, J.--- Through this writ petition, the petitioner company has challenged the notice dated 13.07.2022 (Impugned Notice) issued by the respondents.

2.The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner company is engaged in the business of poultry farming. The respondents, being the regulatory authority, issued the impugned notice to the petitioner company, therein communicating certain instructions and requiring the petitioner company to obtain registration certificate under the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 (the Act of 2011 ) for carrying out the sale of eggs for human consumption. Hence, this Writ Petition.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner company contends that it has already obtained a certificate of registration and license from the Livestock and Dairy Development Punjab under the Poultry Production Act, 2016 (the Act of 2016 ). He further submits that the business of the petitioner company is supervised and controlled by Livestock and Dairy Development Punjab and therefore, falls outside the jurisdiction of the respondents. Consequently, the petitioner company is not required to obtain registration certificate under the Act of 2011. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner company is engaged in food business and under section 15 of the Act of 2011 the petitioner company is required to obtained registration certificate as instructed by the respondents.

4.Arguments heard and record perused.

5.The singular legal question involved herein is: whether the petitioner company, being licensed under the Act of 2016 for poultry farming is still subject to the licensing requirement under section 15 of the Act of 2011 when it engages in the sale of eggs for human consumptions.

6.To address the aforementioned legal question, it would be advantageous to examine both the Acts and their relevant provisions. The Punjab Poultry Production Act, 2016 (the Act of 2016 ) was promulgated on 29.10.2016 and in its preamble it is mentioned that It is necessary to register poultry premises, to improve quality of poultry products and to ensure biosecurity measures in poultry operations; and, to deal with ancillary matters . The relevant section 2(h), (j) and section 3 of the Act are reproduced hereunder:-

(j)"poultry premises" includes a site of a poultry farm, poultry hatcheries, poultry processing plant, or poultry disease diagnostic facility:

7.The Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 was promulgated on 06.07.2011 and in its preamble it is mentioned that Whereas, it is expedient to protect public health, to provide for the safety and standards of food, to establish the Punjab Food Authority and for other connected matters . The section 2(f), (i) and (t) being the relevant one are reproduced hereunder:-

8.Furthermore, in exercise of the power conferred under section 57 of the Act of 2011, the Punjab Food Authority framed Regulations known as Punjab Pure Food Regulations, 2018. In the said Regulation; food business, food premises and food sources are explained in Part I of the clauses 2(o), (p) and (q) which being relevant are reproduced hereunder:-

Chapter 10 of the Regulations deals with eggs and eggs products.

9.Perusal of above reproduced scheme of law reveals that the Act of 2016 deals concerned with the registration of poultry premises, regulation of poultry production, and enhancement of biosecurity measures. Section 2(j) defines "poultry premises" to include farms, hatcheries, processing plants, and diagnostic facilities. Section 2(h) clarifies that a poultry farm refers to the premises for growing birds and expressly excludes temporary sale points. Section 3 mandates registration as a condition precedent for operations.

10.The Act of 2011, by contrast, is designed as a food safety statute. Its preamble makes clear its object: to protect public health and regulate food safety and standards. Section 15(1) provides that no person shall operate a food business without prescribed registration or license. Section 15(2) vests in the Authority a power to exempt a class of food operators from this requirement.

11.It is evident that the two statutes operate in distinct but complementary spheres. The Act of 2016 regulates the production environment and standards applicable to poultry farming. The Act of 2011 intervenes at the point where food is introduced into the consumer supply chain. The sale of eggs for human consumption falls squarely within the ambit of the latter.

12.The petitioner company contention that compliance with the Act of 2016 insulates it from regulation under the Act of 2011 cannot be accepted. Such a construction would defeat the purpose of the Act of 2011, which is premised on the regulatory imperative of ensuring food safety. While there may be regulatory overlap, it is trite that overlap is not repugnancy. The two statutes serve distinct legislative objectives and may validly coexist. Furthermore, there is no ambiguity in the proposition that a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2017 may follow different sets of statutes, like Tax Law, Labour Law and Environmental Law being regulated by distinct regulatory authorities, simultaneously.

13.The issuance of the impugned notice is not without jurisdiction. The petitioner, upon engaging in the sale of eggs, is operating a food business within the meaning of Section 15 of the Act of 2011. The Food Authority was, therefore, acting within its statutory mandate in requiring the petitioner to obtain a license. Furthermore, no document showing exemption under section 15(2) of the Act of 2011 is available on the record.

14.The petitioner company s claim of not using its premises as a sale point is an attempt to evade the jurisdiction of the respondents. However, when questioned about other registered sale points, he denied their existence. The court finds it implausible that the petitioner would handle such a large quantity of eggs without selling them for human consumption, casting doubt on his claims.

15.In view of above discussion, this Court addresses the legal question framed supra by holding that the petitioner company being licensed under the Punjab Poultry Production Act, 2016 for poultry farming is still subject to licensing requirement under section 15 of Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011, when it engages in the sale of eggs for human consumption.

16.Accordingly, instant writ petition is dismissed.

UN/S-96/L Petition dismissed.