HYDERABAD, Jan 29 The Sindh High Court`s Hyderabad circuit bench on Thursday directed EDO health Hyderabad to submit his report as per a previous order of the court regarding examination of samples of Mainpuri to ascertain whether or not it was injurious to health.

Mainpuri is a type of chewing tobacco mixed with some other ingredients like betel nut, lesser cardamom etc.

The order was passed on a constitutional petition filed by Mainpuri producers Mohammad Saeed, Rustam Ali, Nisar Ahmed and Abrar Ahmed.

A division bench of the court on Dec 16, 2008 had ordered that examination report of samples of Mainpuri of the above mentioned producers would be submitted on Jan 29. The cost of examination was to be borne by the petitioners. Three samples are to be submitted to the EDO health.

They had filed a joint constitutional petition arguing that they possessed license for making Mainpuri. Rustam Ali and Abrar Ahmed had previously filed a constitutional petition in 2003, challenging orders of suspension of manufacturing license issued by the EDO health, which was dismissed in limine on Nov 6, 2003.

The petitioners claimed that their product contained various herbs like lesser cardamom, tobacco, lime water, clove and crushed betel nut.

Except tobacco, they said, other ingredients of Mainpuri were not injurious to health. On the contrary, they added, other herbs used in Mainpuri were beneficial to health if consumed properly.

They also cited a book, Kitabul Mafridat, authored by Hakeem Muzaffar Hussain, regarding the benefits of the ingredients used in Mainpuri.

They said that they were selling their product through their agents to be used within 24 hours and in the evening at 5pm; the petitioners withdrew the unsold Mainpuri from the outlets to be replaced by fresh ones.

They said that the National Assembly had formed a committee to encourage production of tobacco and reduce problems faced by its growers.

They said that tobacco though injurious to health was allowed internationally and was used in cigarettes but with a warning on every packet. They said that they also printed a similar warning on their product`s packet, which was a registered trademark.

They said that according to the provision of the Pure Food Ordinance 1960 (PFO), Mainpuri did not fall under the definition of adulterated food and there was no prohibition of mixing and selling it as a mixed food as the government had not prohibited its production and sale.

They said that they were prepared to get their product packaged as per the PFO 1960. They said that they had learnt that the Sindh chief minister had decided against the sale and manufacture of Mainpuri in Sindh, which the petitioners saw as a violation of Article 18 of the Constitution, allowing freedom of trade, business or profession to every citizen.

They prayed to court to declare their business lawful and that their product was not injurious to health. They said that they were ready to have their product samples analysed from public analysts or any other agency.

The petitioners sought directives of the court to declare that they were entitled to carry on the lawful business of Mainpuri, subjected to the display of a written printed label of a warning as mandated by the law on every packet of cigarette and the respondents should also be restrained from interfering with their business.