Kerala High Court Declines Peremptory Mandamus To Desist Authorities From Seizing Pan Masala Products At Check Posts

Justice C S Dias stated that merely because petitioner claims that her Pan Masala does not contain tobacco is not a ground to desist authorities from exercising their powers under the Cigarettes And Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act of 2003.

Court stated, “…the petitioner is not entitled to a peremptory mandamus to prohibit the respondents from exercising their statutory duties in a hypothetical situation like this. The Act is a self- contained enactment with specific provisions for adjudication of disputes. If the respondents seize the petitioner's products, she has an alternative remedy under the Act. The writ petition is misconceived, lacks merits, and is consequentially dismissed.”

The petitioner apprehends that the authorities at Muthanga and Valayar Check Posts may seize her Pan Masala and take unwarranted action against her. She submitted that authorities have no right to seize or detain her product as her Pan Masala is a mouth freshener free from tobacco, and is fit for sale and human consumption. Thus, she seeks a direction from Court to prevent the authorities seizing her Pan Masala.

The Court noted that the petitioner has not brought her Pan Masala to Kerala and it was not seized or tested by the authorities until now.

Referring to Section 12 of Cigarettes And Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act of 2003, the Court stated that competent officer has the authority to enter and search any factory, building, business premises, or other place if there is suspicion of violation of the Act's provisions. The Court further stated that Sections 13 and 14 empowers the officer to confiscate and seize any product based on such suspicion.

Court thus concluded, “In view of the above provisions in the Act, it is explicit that the respondents have the power to enter, search, seize, and confiscate a product if they suspect any of the provisions of the Act are being violated.”

Further, the Court stated that authorities cannot be prevented from exercising their powers under the Act if they have a suspicion. Court added, “Merely because the petitioner states that her product does not contain tobacco, the same cannot be a ground for forbearing the respondents from exercising their statutory powers under the Act. Likewise, just because the respondents have seized and confiscated products of other traders, the same also cannot be a reason to restrain the respondents from exercising their statutory powers, if they have a suspicion regarding the petitioner's product.”

As such, the writ petition was dismissed.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates N L Bitto, Mithul T Anto

Counsel for Respondents: Government Pleader Vidya Kuriakose

Case Number: WP(C) NO. 25329 OF 2024

Case Title: Siji v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 27

Click here to Read/Download Order