Pa ge |1

TEAM CODE:

COLLEGE DETAILS

MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SUPRME COURT OF ETHNIA ________

DISPUTE RELATING TO

TRADE SECRET, FSSAI AND LIABILITY

WRIT PETITION NO. _____/2023

[Under Article 32 of Constitution of India, 1950]

In the matter of

APOXIA ENTERPRISES LIMITED………..PETITIONER

V.

FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARD AUTHORITY OF ETINIA AND ORS

……..RESPONDENT

________________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL on behalf of PETITIONERS

________________________________________________________________
Pa ge |2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………..

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………………

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………….

STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………......

STATEMENT OF ISSUES…………………………………………………………….....

SUMMARY OF ISSUES…………………………………………………………….......

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………………..

ISSUE 1: IS APOXIA BOUND TO DISCLOSE THE TRADE SECRET AND

CONSTITUENT INGREDIENTS OF WAHGI, AND CONSEQUENTLY HAS IT
VIOLATED THE PACKAGING AND LABELLING REQUIREMENTS?
……………………………………………………………………………………………….

ISSUE II: IS FSSAE CORRECT IN BANNING THE SALE OF WAHGI ACROSS THE
COUNTRY?.......................................................................................................................

ISSUE III: SHOULD APOXIA BE LIABLE TO PAY FOR COMPENSATION IN THE

CONSUMER ACTION LAWSUIT, FOR THE POTENTIAL PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS
THAT IT MAY HAVE CAUSED? …………………………………………………………

THE PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………….
Pa ge |3

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSIONS

¶ PARAGRAPH

¶¶ PARAGRAPHS

S. SECTION

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

ALL. ALLAHABAD

ANR ANOTHER

ART ARTICLE

ARTS ARTICLES

CAL. CALCUTTA

CO. COMPANY

CPC CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

ED. EDITION

ENT. ENTRY

GOVT. GOVERNMENT

HON’BLE HONOURABLE

I.E. ID EST

IBID IBIDEM

IN RE IN REFERENCE

LTD. LIMITED

M.P. MADHYA PRADESH

NO. NUMBER

ORS OTHERS
Pa ge |4

P. PAGE

PP. PAGES

PVT. PRIVATE

SC SUPREME COURT

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

SCH. SCHEDULE
Pa ge |5

INDEX OF AUTHORITIS

CASELAWS REFERRED TO:

1. Y. Balaji v. Karthik Desari & Ors. SLP (Crl.) Nos.12779-12781 of 2022

2. John Richard Brady & Ors v Chemical Process Equipment P Ltd & Anr AIR 1987 Del
372
3. Tata Motors Limited & Anr v State of Bengal WP of 2008
4. In State of T.N. v. K. Sabanayagam [(1998) 1 SCC 318
5. Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. vs. Notified Area Committee, (1980) 2 SCC 295
6. CB Gautam v. Union of India 1993 (1) SCC 78
7. Nestle India v. FSSAI Writ Petition No. 1688 of 2015
8. Godawat Pan Masala Products I.P. Ltd vs. Union of India and Others [2004] Insc 420
9. Cassell and Co. Limited v. Broome 1972 AC 1027

STATUTES REFERRED:

1. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908.

2. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
3. FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS (PACKAGING AND LABELING)
REGULATIONS, 2011.
4. Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Pa ge |6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION:
The Petitioners herein submits to the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 read with Article
139-A of the Constitution of Ethnia.
Pa ge |7

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Etinia is a rapidly developing country in South-East Asia. Since liberalisation, the

young, expanding market of Etinia has attracted several companies who were interested
in obtaining a stake in it. This included several companies that are engaged in the Fast-
Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) sector. One such company is Apoxia Enterprises
Limited (“Apoxia”), which manufactures instant ramen noodles under the brand name
of ‘Wahgi’.
2. Wahgi is known for its unique taste and is time efficient as it can be made within three
minutes. As Etinia was suffering from chronic malnourishment when Wahgi was
introduced into the market in 2002, the Government of Etinia voluntarily granted
Apoxia special permits. Additionally, owing to these features, Wahgi was a handy food
product that could be transported, and consumed in instances of natural calamities. As
a result, this further boosted the popularity of Wahgi. Children loved Wahgi for its taste
and were its largest consumer base, and adults loved Wahgi because it saved them time
to cook.
3. Wahgi and in turn Apoxia are the single largest private sector employers in the country,
providing jobs to millions of people, and a source of livelihood to several more. By
2023, Wahgi has captured 40% of the FMCG food market, and has become a product
that is found in every household. In spite of its popularity, some of Wahgi’s ingredients
have been kept secret to avoid competitors from creating similar products and the said
ingredients are not reflected on the packaging of the product.
4. However, a potential public health disaster is surreptitiously brewing in the nation for
the past few years. Obesity started to become a pervasive affliction in Etinia, being
particularly rampant amongst children. Scientists and researchers felt that the problem
was not natural and must have been caused by certain external elements. The premier
health research organisation in Etinia is the government-funded Food Research
Laboratory (FRL).
5. The head of FRL is Mr Ramsay who is a known critic of Wahgi and he has written
several vicious articles in reputed journals criticising the product, even before he joined
FRL. FRL published a report which makes blockbuster claims that consumption of
Wahgi over the course of time has resulted in all the health issues being faced by the
nation. The research was based on analysis of samples of instant noodle packets that
Pa ge |8

FRL researchers purchased at random from around the country. FRL also demands that
all the ingredients of Wahgi be disclosed including its secret ingredients, so that the
exact cause of obesity can be determined. The report also alleges that packaging and
labelling requirements for Wahgi are not being complied with, and what is being
disclosed by Wahgi on its packaging is insufficient.
6. Meanwhile, based on FRL’s research report, the Food Safety and Standard Authority
of Etinia (FSSAE) has banned the sale of Wahgi in the entire country calling it ‘unsafe
and hazardous’. Further, FSSAE in its meeting with all the state food safety
commissioners has directed them to collect Wahgi samples within their jurisdiction and
send them for further testing.
7. Apoxia in turn claims that Wahgi is a safe product and that the ban and allegations are
baseless. It states that it cannot disclose the entire list of Wahgi’s ingredients to FRL as
some of it is a trade secret and because of a past incident at FRL where it was found
that bribes have been paid by companies to FRL researchers to obtain data from the
research lab about products of competitors that were being tested or to influence test
results in a certain way. Apoxia also states that disclosure of the key ingredients would
lead to its entire market cap being wiped out, and disastrous economic consequences
for the nation.
8. Several public welfare organisations have called for a permanent boycott of the product.
The ban and mass boycott have led to Apoxia losing out on hundreds of millions of
dollars in revenue, and potential investment, as well as a loss of brand value and good
faith. Apoxia has also had to layoff thousands of its employees owing to these pecuniary
losses.
9. The complainants have filed a consumer action case alleging that the company has
adversely affected their health and safety and have demanded significant sums in
compensation. Apoxia in turn has sued the FRL on the grounds of defamation, and
misleading statements. Apoxia has also challenged FSSAE’s ban on the sale of Wahgi
on the of lacking any substantial reasons or research. The matter has now reached the
Supreme Court of Etinia, which has clubbed the various issues together.
Pa ge |9

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE -I

IS APOXIA BOUND TO DISCLOSE THE TRADE SECRET AND CONSTITUENT

INGREDIENTS OF WAHGI, AND CONSEQUENTLY HAS IT VIOLATED THE
PACKAGING AND LABELLING REQUIREMENTS?

ISSUE -II

IS FSSAE CORRECT IN BANNING THE SALE OF WAHGI ACROSS THE COUNTRY?

ISSUE-III
SHOULD APOXIA BE LIABLE TO PAY FOR COMPENSATION IN THE CONSUMER
ACTION LAWSUIT, FOR THE POTENTIAL PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS THAT IT MAY
HAVE CAUSED?
P a g e | 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE -I

The Advocates on behalf of Apoxia herein submits that the Apoxia is not bound to disclose the
trade secret and constituent ingredients of Wahgi. The Petitioners submits that the grounds for
disclosure of the trade secret have not been made out by the Respondents and therefore it is not
under an obligation to disclose the trade secret. The Petitioners further submits that the
packaging and labelling requirements as required under the law have not been violated since
Wahgi has disclosed all the mandatory requirements as required under the Food Safety and
Standards (Packaging and labeling) Regulations, 2011.

ISSUE-II

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that FSSAE is incorrect in banning the Sale
of Wahgi across the country. It is submitted that FSSAE has acted in a haphazard manner and
thereby banning the sale of Wahgi without providing any opportunity to the Apoxia to submit
its claims and thereby resulting in losses. It is further submitted that the principles of natural
justice ought to have been followed by the FSSAI and it has failed to adhere to the basic notions
of justice, morality, equity and good conscience.

ISSSUE-III

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Apoxia is not liable to pay for
Compensation in the Consumer Action Lawsuit. Apoxia never cause any ruckus and is not
responsible for the havoc caused due to actions of Mr. Ramsay. It is Mr. Ramsay who through
this false, incorrect and misleading statements that the havoc was caused amongst the general
public. Furthermore, it should be FSSAI as well who should be held accountable and hence
compensation ought to be taken from them for leading to such a chaotic situation under the
laws of Ethnia.
P a g e | 11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1- THAT THE APOXIA IS NOT BOUND TO DISCLOSE THE

TRADE SECRET AND CONSTITUENT INGREDIENTS OF WAHGI,
AND HAS NOT VIOLATED THE PACKAGING AND LABELLING
REQUIREMENTS?

The Advocates on behalf of Apoxia herein submits that the Apoxia is not bound to disclose the
trade secret and constituent ingredients of Wahgi. The Petitioners submits that the grounds for
disclosure of the trade secret have not been made out by the Respondents and therefore it is not
under an obligation to disclose the trade secret. The Petitioners further submits that the
packaging and labelling requirements as required under the law have not been violated since
Wahgi has disclosed all the mandatory requirements as required under the Food Safety and
Standards (Packaging and labeling) Regulations, 2011.

1.1 Trade Secret has not been disclosed to public.

Under the laws of Ethnia, there is no statute or legislation that governs the protection of trade
secrets in India. However, rights in respect of trade secrets are enforced through contract law
(Indian Contract Act, 1872)principles of equity or by way of a common law action for breach
of confidence. The Delhi High Court, in the case of John Richard Brady & Ors v Chemical
Process Equipment P Ltd & Anr1, held the following:
These rules may, according to the circumstances in any given case, either rest
on the principles of equity, that is to say the application by the Court of the
need for conscientiousness in the course of conduct, or by the common law
action for breach of confidence, which is in effect a breach of contract.

India is also a signatory of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPs). Under article 39(2), TRIPs allows members the flexibility to frame laws that
prevent the unauthorised disclosure and use of certain information, provided this ‘information’
meets the following criteria:
i. it is secret in the sense that it is not, as a body or in the precise configuration and
assembly of its components, generally known among or readily accessible to persons
within the circles that normally deal with the kind of information in question;

1
AIR 1987 Delhi 372
P a g e | 12

ii. it has commercial value because it is secret; and

iii. it has been subject to reasonable steps under the circumstances, by the person lawfully
in control of the information, to keep it secret.2

In Tata Motors Limited & Anr v State of Bengal3, the High Court of Kolkata relied on the
definition of the term ‘trade secret’ in Black’s Law Dictionary and observed that a trade secret
is a formula, process, device or other business information that is kept confidential to maintain
an advantage over competitors. The information includes a formula, pattern, compilation,
programme, device, method, technique or process:

i. that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally
known or readily ascertainable by others who can obtain economic value from its
disclosure or use; and

ii. that is the subject of reasonable efforts, under the circumstances, to maintain its
secrecy.

The High Court of Bombay, in addition to the above, has laid down the following criteria
in Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co Ltd v Mehar Karan Singh4, for any piece of
information to be considered a trade secret:
i. the extent to which the information is known outside the business;

ii. the extent to which it is known to those inside the business, namely employees;

iii. the precautions taken by the holder of the trade secret to guard the secrecy;

iv. the savings affected and the value to the holder in having the information as against
competitors;

v. the amount of effort or money expended in obtaining and developing the information;
and

vi. the amount of time and expense it would take others to acquire and duplicate the
information.

2
Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs).
3
WP No. 1773 of 2008
4
2010 (112) BomLR 375
P a g e | 13

Trade secrets are a subset of ‘confidential information’. While certain courts in India have used
the terms ‘trade secret’ and ‘confidential information’ synonymously, other courts have clearly
distinguished between the two and have held that the routine, day-to-day affairs of an employer,
which are in the knowledge of many and are commonly known to others, cannot be called trade
secrets.

1.2 No Public Interest can be claimed as far as disclosure of Trade Secret is concerned.

It is the humble submission of the Petitioners that no public interest in the present matter. The
present case has been filed with the malafide intent and has been supported by the ill-motive
of Mr Ramsay. Mr. Ramsay has always been critical of the Wahgi. His research is also ill-
motivated and has been done in complete thrust of taking vengeance against Apoxia.

As has been held in numerous cases, the principle established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
is that where the investigation ex facie is unfair, tainted, mala fide and smacks of foul play, the
courts would set aside such an investigation and direct fresh or de novo investigation and, if
necessary, even by another independent investigating agency. As already noticed, this is a
power of wide plenitude and, therefore, has to be exercised sparingly. The principle of the
rarest of rare cases would squarely apply to such cases. Unless the unfairness of the
investigation is such that it pricks the judicial conscience of the court, the court should be
reluctant to interfere in such matters to the extent of quashing an investigation and directing a
“fresh investigation”.5

The Petitioners herein submits that they have no objection with respect to the fresh
investigation by an Independent Agency wherein Mr. Ramsay couldn’t influence. Mr. Ramsay
is an influential person and there lies no doubts about the fact that due to his personal vengeance
with Apoxia and Wahgi, he has tried to tarnish the image of the Company amongst the general
public by spreading misinformation about the product. There have been recent incidents at FRL
where it was found that bribes have been paid by companies to FRL researchers to obtain data
from the research lab about products of competitors that were being tested or to influence test
results in a certain way.

5
Y. Balaji v. Karthik Desari & Ors. SLP (Crl.) Nos.12779-12781 of 2022
P a g e | 14

1.3 Apoxia has not violated Food Packaging and Labelling Regulations.
The Counsel on behalf of Petitioners submits that Apoxia has not violated the Food Packaging
and Labelling Regulations with respect to its product Wahgi. The food labeling regulations
require all “Prepackaged” or “Pre-packed food” to comply with the labeling regulations in
Ethnia. Per the rules, prepackaged food means food placed in a package of any nature in such
a manner that the contents cannot be changed without tampering and which is ready for sale to
the consumer.

The following labeling requirements must be complied with by all prepackaged food sold in
India:

 The label must be in English or Hindi, or the Devnagri language. In addition to the
above, the title can contain Information in any other language, as required.
 The label must not contain Information about the food that could be deemed false,
misleading, deceptive, or otherwise create an erroneous impression regarding the
product.
 The label must be affixed to the container so that it would not easily be separated from
the container.
 The contents or Information presented on the label should be clear, prominent,
memorable, and readily legible by the consumer.
 If a wrapper covers the container, then the wrapper must contain necessary Information
or make the label of the product inside readily legible by not obscuring.
 The name of the food must be mentioned along with the trade name and description. In
case the food contains more than one ingredient, then a list of ingredients must be
presented in descending order of their composition by weight or volume, as the case
may be, at the time of its manufacture;

It is hereby submitted that all the requirements have been duly complied as per the present
regulations except for the list of ingredients since some of them falls within the domain of
Trade Secret and therefore we are well within our rights to protect the Trade Secret. The said
list of ingredients cannot be disclosed since it will result to its entire market cap being wiped
out, and disastrous economic consequences for the nation.
P a g e | 15

ISSUE -II THAT THE FSSAE IS INCORRECT IN BANNING THE SALE OF

WAHGI ACROSS THE COUNTRY?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that FSSAE is incorrect in banning the Sale
of Wahgi across the country. It is submitted that FSSAE has acted in a haphazard manner and
thereby banning the sale of Wahgi without providing any opportunity to the Apoxia to submit
its claims and thereby resulting in losses.

2.1 FSSAE has violated basic principles of Natural Justice

There has been a clear violation of principles of natural justice when it comes to handling of
the case by the FSSAE. Apoxia was not given any opportunity to present its case before the
authority before FSSAE banned the sale of Wahgi across the country and therefore this clearly
violates Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

It is quite well settled that whenever allegation is made that there is violation of principles of
natural justice the Petitioner is entitled to challenge the said order and, secondly, in the present
case, the impugned order banning the sale of Wahgi since the order imposes a ban on
manufacture, sale, distribution of Wahgi Noodles. It, therefore, imposes a complete ban on the
product. The order banning the Wahgi were passed in utter violation of principles of natural
justice since no show cause notice was given to the Petitioner. As a result of the impugned
orders, goodwill and reputation of the Petitioner - Company had been damaged irreparably. It
is further submitted that the Petitioner is carrying of business of Wahgi in Ethnia for more than
30 years and such a complaint was never made against the Petitioner by anyone in the
past. Reliance can be placed on the Bombay High Court judgment of Nestle India v. FSSAI.6

The Apex Court in CB Gautam v. Union of India 7while deciding the issue as to whether in
the absence of specific requirement of following the principles of natural justice in any section,
whether it can be implied that such a hearing has to be given has observed in paras 28 and 30
as under:-

"28. It must, however, be borne in mind that courts have generally read into the
provisions of the relevant sections a requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity
of being heard before an order is made which would have adverse civil consequences

6
W.P. 1688 of 2015.
7
1993 (1) SCC 78
P a g e | 16

for the parties affected. This would be particularly so in a case where the validity of
the section would be open to a serious challenge for want of such an opportunity."

"30.......... The observance of principles of natural justice is the pragmatic

requirement of fair play in action. In our view, therefore, a requirement of an
opportunity to show cause being given before an order for purchase by the Central
Government is made by an appropriate authority under section 269-UD must be
read into the provisions of Chapter XX-C. There is nothing in the 1 (1993) 1 SCC
78 WPL/1688/2015 language of section 269-UD or any other provision in the said
Chapter which would negate such an opportunity being given. Moreover, if such a
requirement were not read into the provisions of the said Chapter, they would be
seriously open to challenge on the ground of violations of the provisions of Article
14 on the ground of non-compliance with principles of natural justice.

Similarly, in Godawat Pan Masala Products I.P. Ltd vs. Union of India and Others8, it has been
held that hearing will have to be given before the impugned order is passed. In paras 75 and 76
of the said judgment the Apex Court has observed as under:-

"75. In State of T.N. v. K. Sabanayagam [(1998) 1 SCC 318 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 260] (Vide para
17) this Court after referring to 1 (2004) 7 SCC 68 WPL/1688/2015 the aforesaid observations
of Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Cynamide [(1987) 2 SCC 720] observed that even when exercising
a legislative function, the delegate may in a given case be required to consider the viewpoint
which may be likely to be affected by the exercise of power. This Court pointed out that
conditional legislation can be broadly classified into three categories: (1) when the legislature
has completed its task of enacting a statute, the entire superstructure of the legislation is ready
but its future applicability to a given area is left to the subjective satisfaction of the delegate
(as in Tulsipur Sugar Co. case [Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. vs. Notified Area Committee, (1980)
2 SCC 295]; (2) where the delegate has to decide whether and under what circumstances a
legislation which has already come into force is to be partially withdrawn from operation in a
given area or in given cases so as not to be applicable to a given class of persons who are
otherwise admittedly governed by the Act:

The Apex Court has further held in para 76 that principle of natural justice requires that
Respondents should have been given an opportunity of meeting such facts. The ratio of this

8
[2004] Insc 420
P a g e | 17

judgment will squarely apply to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the Food
Authority and the Commissioner of Food Safety, banning State of Ethnia have not issued any
Notification all Noodles. The Food Authority has banned the product of the Petitioner relying
on the results given by the Food Laboratories.

It was, therefore, incumbent upon the Food Authority and the Commissioner of Food Safety to
have given all the material to the Petitioner on the basis of which the orders banning the Wahgi
were passed so that the Petitioner - Company could have got an opportunity of giving its reply
to the material on the basis of the which the said impugned orders were passed.
P a g e | 18

ISSUE III: THAT THE APOXIA IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY FOR COMPENSATION
IN THE CONSUMER ACTION LAWSUIT.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Apoxia is not liable to pay for
Compensation in the Consumer Action Lawsuit. Apoxia never cause any ruckus and is not
responsible for the havoc caused due to actions of Mr. Ramsay. It is Mr. Ramsay who through
this false, incorrect and misleading statements that the havoc was caused amongst the general
public. Furthermore, it should be FSSAI as well who should be held accountable and hence
compensation ought to be taken from them for leading to such a chaotic situation under the
laws of Ethnia.

3.1 FSSAI should be held liable for compensation and not Apoxia

In the case of LDA v. M.K. Gupta9, the court opined that “Under our Constitution sovereignty
vests in the people. Every limb of the constitutional machinery is obliged to be people oriented.
No functionary in exercise of statutory power can claim immunity, except to the extent
protected by the statute itself. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or
statutory WPL/1688/2015 provisions oppressively are accountable for their behaviour before
authorities created under the statute like the commission or the courts entrusted with
responsibility of maintaining the rule of law. Each hierarchy in the Act is empowered to
entertain a complaint by the consumer for value of the goods or services and compensation.”

The word 'compensation' is again of very wide connotation. It has not been defined in the Act.

According to dictionary it means, 'compensating or being compensated; thing given as

recompense;'. In legal sense it may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to
physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. Therefore, when the
Commission has been vested with the jurisdiction to award value of goods or services and
compensation it has to be construed widely enabling the Commission to determine
compensation for any loss or damage suffered by a consumer which in law is otherwise
included in wide meaning of compensation. The provision in our opinion enables a consumer
to claim and empowers the Commission to redress any injustice done to him. Any other
construction would defeat the very purpose of the Act. The Commission or the Forum in the
Act is thus entitled to award not only value of the goods or services but also to compensate a
consumer for injustice suffered by him.

9
(1994) 1 SCC 243
P a g e | 19

It is the submission of the Petitioners that it should be the FSSAI who should be liable for
payment of commission since they have caused the havoc and they have acted beyond their
jurisdiction by not following the principles of natural justice.

The jurisdiction and power of the courts to indemnify a citizen for injury suffered due to abuse
of power by public authorities is founded as observed by Lord Hailsham in Cassell and Co.
Limited v. Broome10, on the principle that, 'an award of exemplary damages can serve a useful
purpose in vindicating the strength of law'. An ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly
equipped to match the might of the State or its instrumentalities. That is provided by the rule
of law. It acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of power.

In Rookes v. Barnard11 it was observed by Lord Devlin, 'the servants of the government are
also the servants of the people and the use of their power must always be subordinate to their
duty of service'. A public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of
power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law
provides protection against it. He who is responsible for it must suffer it.

Compensation or damage as explained earlier may arise even when the officer discharges his
duty honestly and bona fide. But when it arises due to arbitrary or capricious behaviour then it
loses its individual character and assumes social significance. Harassment of a common man
by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him
personally but the injury to society is far more grievous.

Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing
is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining
and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing
against it. Therefore, the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only
compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil. It may result
in improving the work culture and help in changing the outlook. Wade in his book
Administrative Law has observed that it is to the credit of public authorities that there are
simply few reported English decisions on this form of malpractice, namely, misfeasance in
public offices which includes malicious use of power, deliberate maladministration and
perhaps also other unlawful acts causing injury. One of the reasons for this appears to be
development of law which, apart, from other factors succeeded in keeping a salutary check on

10
1972 AC 1027
11
1964 AC 1129
P a g e | 20

the functioning in the government or semi-government offices by holding the officers

personally responsible for their capricious or even ultra vires action resulting in injury or loss
to a citizen by awarding damages against them.

Therefore the Petitioners humbly submits that Petitioners are not liable to pay any
compensation and it should be the FSSAI who should be liable to pay the compensation.
P a g e | 21

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of facts stated, the cases cited, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, it is most humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Ethnia, that it may be graciously pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. Apoxia is well within its rights under the law to not disclose the ingredients of Wahgi.
2. Apoxia has not violated labelling and packaging regulations as per the law of Ethnia.
3. FSSAI acted in an unfair, arbitrary and malafide manner to ban Wahgi.
4. Apoxia is entitled to damages to the tune of INR 500 Crores from FSSAI.

Also, pass any other order that the court may deem fit in the favour of Petitioner to meet the
ends of equity, justice and good conscience.

For this act of Kindness, the Petitioner shall duty bound forever pray.

Place: Mumbai Respectfully submitted,

Dated: 4th August, 2023 Counsel for Petitioner