Administrative Law

Dwarka Nath v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

AIR 1971 SC 1844

Facts

The appellants manufactured/sold ghee in Delhi.
Food Inspectors found that the label on the ghee tin did not fully comply with Rule 32(b) and Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.
Rule 32(b) required the name and business address of the manufacturer/vendor/packer.
Rule 32(e) required a batch number or code number on the label.
The appellants challenged these rules as being beyond the rule-making power under Section 23 of the Act.

Whether Rule 32(b) and Rule 32(e) were ultra vires Section 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

Delegated legislation must remain within the limits of the parent Act.
A rule cannot go beyond the object and purpose for which rule-making power is given.
If the parent Act allows rules for preventing deception about the character, quality or quantity of food, the rule must actually serve that purpose.

The Court examined Section 23 carefully.
Section 23 allowed the Central Government to make labelling rules with a view to preventing the public or purchaser from being deceived or misled about the food article.
For Rule 32(b):
Requiring the name and business address of the manufacturer/vendor/packer was connected to the statutory purpose.
In food business, the name and address may be associated with quality, reputation and accountability.
Therefore, this rule helped the purchaser identify the source of the product and was within the rule-making power.
For Rule 32(e):
The Court said that merely putting an artificial batch number or code number did not, by itself, tell the purchaser anything useful.
It did not show date of manufacture, expiry, quantity, quality, or safety.
So, it did not really prevent deception about the character, quality or quantity of the ghee.
Therefore, Rule 32(e) travelled beyond the purpose allowed by Section 23.

Rule 32(b) was held valid.
Rule 32(e) was held ultra vires the parent Act.
The appellants’ conviction under Rule 32(e) could not stand.
As to Rule 32(b), the Court said there was only a technical breach because some address was given, though not fully detailed.
Since the lower courts had convicted them considering both Rule 32(b) and invalid Rule 32(e), the convictions were set aside.
Use this case for: a delegated rule must have a real connection with the purpose of the parent statute; otherwise it is substantively ultra vires.