Find a Lawyer

LUNG FUNG CHINESE RESTAURANT versus PUNJAB FOOD AUTHORITY

ections Sections 13, 16, 40 and 52 - Constitution of Pakistan, Arts 10A & 199 - Constitutional Application - Punjab Food Authority the Food Safety Officer's powers rove improvement notice - Nature and use of powers under Sections 13 and 16 of Punjab Food. Distinguishing between the powers of the Food Safety Officer under sections 13 and 16 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011, the precautionary principle in food safety laws was the question before the High Court whether Punjab Food. Authority and its Food Safety Officers (Punjab). Notice that the night before was the need and the opportunity to continue the hearing. Accuracy - In the view that to seek the powers under section 13 (l) (c) of the Punjab Food Authority Act 2011, the Food Safety Officer had to first issue a notice of improvement under section 16 of Punjab Food A. Prior to sealing the premises, the Authority Act, 2011 was deemed invalid because Section 13 was exempt from the powers under Section 16 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011. Powers were sought under Section 16 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011. Were when the food operator failed. Comply with the provisions of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 and the rules and regulations thereby, despite notices by the Food Safety Officer. On the other hand, the Food Safety Officer has the power to act regularly under Section 13 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011. And Food Business Supervision - There was a fundamental difference between Sections 13 and 16 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011, the former being a enforcement mechanism while the latter was a regulatory tool that led to the Food Safety Officer.

PLD 2017 Lahore 545

Before Ayesha A. Malik, J

LUNG FUNG CHINESE RESTAURANT through Atiq Ahmed and 2 others—Petitioners

versus

PUNJAB FOOD AUTHORITY through Secretary and 6 others—Respondents

Writ Petition No.25124 of 2015, heard on 27th January, 2017.

Punjab Food Authority Act (XVI of 2011)—

—Ss. 13, 16, 40 & 52—Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 10-A & 199— Constitutional petition—Punjab Food Authority—Powers of the Food Safety Officer—Improvement notice—Nature and exercise of powers under Ss. 13 & 16 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011—Distinction between nature of powers of Food Safety Officer under Ss. 13 & 16 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011—Precautionary principle in food safety laws—Scope—Question before High Court was whether Punjab Food Authority and its Food Safety Officer(s) were required to issue notice and provide an opportunity of hearing before exercising powers of sealing premises under S.13(l)(c) of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011, and whether the said provision was ultra vires the Constitution— Validity—Contention that in order to invoke powers under S.13(l)(c) of the Punjab Food Authority Act 2011, the Food Safety Officer had to first issue improvement notice under S.16 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 before sealing premises, was misconceived as powers under said S.13 were independent of powers under S.16 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011—Powers under S.16 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 were invoked when a food operator had failed to comply with provisions of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011, and rules and regulations thereunder, despite notice from a Food Safety Officer— Section 13 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 on the other hand authorized Food Safety Officer to carry out functions of regulating and monitoring the food business—Fundamental difference existed between Ss.13 & 16 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011, in that the fÓrm;er was an enforcement mechanism while the latter was a regulatory tool allowing the Food Safety Officer to ensure that food provider provided safe food—Food Safety Officer could exercise powers under S.13 as well as under S.16 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011, in different situations as neither section was dependent upon the other—Clear intent of the Legislature was to give the Food Safety Officer the ability to take action not only to stop the harm also to prevent further harm in cases where imminent danger ty public health was — Section 13 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 was based on the precautionary principle and Food Safety Officers must have self-executing powers that allowed them to act immediately which was necessary to protect the overriding objective public health and food safety— High Court observed that the temporary nature of Food Safety Officer's order and ability to review any action taken by the said officer satisfied the due process requirement and there no violation of Art.lO-A of the Constitution—Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances, [pp. 553, 554, 556] B

Khawaja Ahmad Hassaan v. Government of Punjab and others 2005 SCMR 186; Messrs Pearl Continental Hotel, through Executive Manager, Khyber, Peshawar v. Government of N.W.F.P through Secretary Excise and Taxation of N.-W.F.P, Peshawar and 3 others PLD 2005 Pesh. 25; Mst. Afsana v. District Police Officer (Operation), Khairpur and 5 others 2007 YLR 1618 and Government of KPK and others v. Khalid Mehmood 2012 SCMR 619 ref.

Ms. Shehla Zia and others v. WAPDA PLD 1994 SC 693; Imrana Tiwana v. Province of Punjab and others 2015 CLD 983; Adeel ur Rehman v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2005 PTD 172; Regarding Pensionary Benefits of the Judges of the Superior Courts PLD 2013 SC 829; Justice Khurshid Anwar Binder v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2010 SC 483 and Warid Telecom (Pvt) Limited v. Pakistan Telecommunication Authority 2015 SCMR 338 rel. 4

M. Irfan Khan Ghaznavi for Petitioners

Mrs. Samia Khalid, AAG along with Muhammad Khurshid, Assistant Director (Legal), Punjab Food Authority, Lahore for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 27th January, 2017.

law websites from Mingora lawyer