Latest news with #JusticeVLakshminarayanan
Time of India
16-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Tirupati laddu ghee row: HC sets aside suspension of licence of dairy firm
Madurai: Madras high court on Friday set aside the order passed by the authorities suspending the licence of Dindigul-based A R Dairy Food Private Limited for allegedly supplying ghee with foreign fat for preparing laddu in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD). The court remitted the matter back to the central licencing authority under the Food Safety and Standards Act , 2006, for reconsideration. The court was hearing a petition filed by A R Dairy Food Private Limited. An allegation was made against the company regarding the possible presence of foreign fat other than milk fat in the ghee supplied to TTD. This was initiated by proceedings of the director (Institute of Preventive Medicine), Andhra Pradesh. Show cause notices were issued, and replies were received. Subsequently, the order was passed, and the licence of the petitioner was suspended in full. Challenging the order, the petitioner filed the petition. Justice V Lakshminarayanan observed that the designated officer suspended the licence concerning all the activities for which it was granted under Section 31 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The reason for suspending all the activities for which the licence was granted to the petitioner related only to the supply of misbranded ghee to TTD and the consequent unauthorised and untraceable distribution of the rejected ghee. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Sciatica & Back Pain? Try This New Breakthrough Device Glokore Learn More Undo The petitioner manufactures several products. Of all those products, ghee alone has put the petitioner on a sticky wicket. The authority had to decide whether the activities of the petitioner were so detrimental to the public that the suspension of all the activities was necessary or whether the suspension of the manufacture of ghee products alone was sufficient. When the Licensing Regulations Act and Regulations call upon the authorities to decide on this issue, failure on their part to consider this aspect necessarily requires the interference of the court, the judge observed. Hence, the judge set aside the suspension order and remitted the matter back to the licencing authority for reconsideration. The judge directed that the authority shall decide, by way of a reasoned order, whether to suspend the licence of the petitioner for all the activities, or for manufacturing, transportation, and sale of ghee alone. The exercise shall be completed within four weeks. The interim order of the court, which suspended the licence only with respect to ghee, will continue until the authority passes fresh orders. The judge made it clear that the suspension of the licence is an interim measure that would be in force for six weeks. The same cannot be allowed to operate indefinitely. Within the said period, the designated officer may take a decision on the cancellation of the licence of the petitioner, following the procedure established. Since the petition is allowed on technical grounds, the judge directed the petitioner to pay a cost of 2 lakh to the central licencing authority within two weeks.
Time of India
03-05-2025
- Time of India
Financial aid given to child in grandparent's care: Authorities to HC
Madurai: After the authorities informed the Madras high court that financial assistance was provided to a child under the care of his grandparent, the court disposed of a plea filed in this regard. The court was hearing the petition filed by a senior citizen aged about 70 years from Sivaganga district. The petitioner stated that his daughter was married and had a male child. Due to a dispute, his daughter got divorced and was living at her parental home. His daughter died during the Covid-19 pandemic. He stated that his grandson was staying with his friend and was studying in an aided school in Dindigul district. The petitioner stated that he submitted an application to the authorities seeking Rs26,000 financial assistance, which was sanctioned by the govt for parentless children. Since his application was not considered, the petitioner filed the present petition. Justice V Lakshminarayanan observed that a letter dated March 6, 2025, addressed by the district child protection officer to the petitioner, was produced before the court. It stated that Rs26,000 was deposited into the bank account of the child and that the child would be given financial assistance under Mission Vatsalya from the ensuing academic year. Since the authorities addressed the issue raised by the petitioner, no further orders were necessary, the judge observed and disposed of the petition.
