All Kerala Tobacco Dealers' Association vs. State of Kerala
The court rejected the gutkha industry's prayer for an interim stay of the State of Kerala's gutkha and pan masala ban. Among other things, the court agreed with the finding of the Patna High Court in a similar matter that the Commissioner of Food Safety properly exercised his discretion to undertake a ban of these products. Finding no illegality or invalidity for the reasons stated by the petitioner, the court refused to stay operation of the ban.
All Kerala Tobacco Dealers' Association vs. State of Kerala, Civil No. 12352/2012, Kerala High Court (2012).
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
Tobacco products that are used by means other than smoking, such as chewing, sniffing, or placing between the teeth and gum. Examples include chewing tobacco, dipping tobacco, snuf, snus, gutkha or gutka, and dissolvable tobacco products.
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"As far as the interim prayer sought in the said writ petition is concerned, the petitioner is seeking stay of operation of Ext.P1 to the extent of prohibiting the business of manufacturing, storing, distribution, sale and marketing of petitioner's products, which are mentioned above. The point vehemently submitted by the learned Advocate General is that this Court cannot grant a general declaration in favour of a manufacturer as far as the specified products mentioned in the writ petition are concerned. It is pointed out that if the petitioner is confronted with any action, they will have to be specifically prove that the said products are not covered by the notification. In fact, it is also pointed out that a declaration as sought for, cannot be granted by a writ Court, as the same will be misutilised by the manufacturers, sellers and distributors for selling other products which will disentitle the officers from taking any action. In the counter affidavit filed in the said writ petition, in para 2 it is stated that prohibition applies only in respect of gutka and panmasala containing tobacco and nicotine as ingredients. Contentions have been raised that the products of the petitioner referred to in the writ petition, do not conform to the regulations, viz. Food Safety and Standards (Packing and Labelling) Regulations, 2011. It is also alleged that the petitioner has not disclosed, the ingredients of the products in the label. It is explained that gutka and panmasala and other similar products have sweet smell and it is difficult to detect the ·use by the students even in the classrooms or in the school/college campuses, as these items are kept under the tongue."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
The court rejected the gutkha industry's prayer for an interim stay of the State of Kerala's gutkha and pan masala ban. Among other things, the court agreed with the finding of the Patna High Court in a similar matter that the Commissioner of Food Safety properly exercised his discretion to undertake a ban of these products. Finding no illegality or invalidity for the reasons stated by the petitioner, the court refused to stay operation of the ban.