The Hindu : Karnataka / Bangalore News : Court adjourns hearing on PepsiCo petition

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Sep 26, 2006
ePaper

Karnataka

Karnataka - Bangalore

Court adjourns hearing on PepsiCo petition

Staff Reporter

PepsiCo claimed that there was no pesticide residue limits prescribed under current regulations for carbonated beverages

BANGALORE: The Karnataka High Court adjourned till September 30 a petition by PepsiCo India Holdings Limited challenging an August 14 notification by the State Government prohibiting the distribution and sale of aerated beverages manufactured by it.

On September 4, the court had, in an interim order, partially stayed the notification.

While permitting the stay on sale of Pepsi in schools and colleges, it had stayed the notification in respect of State Government offices and other places.

PepsiCo had moved the court against the notification of hte State Government banning aerated beverages in schools, hospital and State Government offices.

On its part, the State claimed that it had issued the notification prohibiting with immediate effect the sale and distribution of carbonated beverages in public places on the ground that it contained pesticides and was injurious to public health.

Saying that the notification was issued under Rule 4 (3) of the Karnataka Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 86, PepsiCo contended that it was illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Constitution.

It said it had set up a plant at 34th km stone on Tumkur road in T. Begur. It said it was in the business of manufacturing packaged drinking water and carbonated beverages and they were sold under the brand name Aquafina, Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, 7Up, Miranda Oranga, Mirinda Lemon, Mountain Dew and Evervess Soda.

Contention

It contended that the State had not and could not have analysed any samples of beverages for testing pesticide residue and as such they could not opine that the pesticide residue was beyond permissible limits. Nor had it conducted any independent study to specifically point out at the adverse health effect.

It claimed that there was no pesticide residue limits prescribed under current regulations for carbonated beverages. Moreover, the State did not have the jurisdiction, authority or power under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act or rules to prohibit the sale of any food article. It urged the court to quash the notification.

When the matter commenced, PepsiCo said the State had issued a showcause notice to it though a writ was still pending.

Report

Appearing for the State, Advocate-General Uday Holla contended that the Government would not go ahead with the showcause notice.

He said that the samples of aerated beverages had been sent to the CFTRI and that a report was yet to be received.

Justice D.V. Shylendra Kumar, who is hearing the petition, adjourned further hearing on the case.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Karnataka