Cuttack: Orissa high court has sought a response from the govt to a writ appeal against its Aug 21 judgment that had dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the state’s ban on food products containing tobacco or nicotine.A division bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash issued a notice to the govt after a preliminary hearing on Monday. The bench posted the matter for further hearing on Oct 12.The writ appeal was filed by a Cuttack-based company manufacturing and selling tobacco and tobacco-based products against the Aug 21 judgment by Justice S K Panigrahi.Justice Panigrahi had upheld the state govt’s Jan 21, 2026, notification prohibiting manufacture, processing, packaging, storage, transportation, distribution and sale of food products containing tobacco or nicotine as ingredients. The notification also covers flavoured, scented or additive-mixed chewable products, including those sold as gutkha, pan masala and other similar products.In the writ appeal, the company has primarily questioned the classification of chewing tobacco as “food” under the the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006. The company contended that the definition of “food” under Section 3(1)(j) is exhaustive and cannot be expanded through administrative interpretation. Chewing tobacco, it argued, is neither ordinarily understood as food nor specifically included within the statutory definition.Several companies had challenged the notification before the high court, contending that the state lacked authority to impose such a prohibition under the FSSA Act. On Aug 21, Justice Panigrahi, however, rejected their pleas, holding that the notification was in conformity with FSSA Act and the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011.Justice Panigrahi, while upholding the notification, had emphasised the public health concerns associated with tobacco and nicotine-containing products. The court observed that the state’s restriction had a “direct nexus” with protection of public health from tobacco and nicotine used in products meant for human consumption.The court had also taken note of material concerning the harmful effects and prevalence of smoke-less tobacco.Justice Panigrahi further held that, viewed within the statutory framework, the notification did not impose restrictions beyond those contemplated under the law.