The burden of proof lies with the authorities to demonstrate the violation of regulations, and reasons and supportive material must be provided when taking action based on the provisions of the law.

Anoop V. Mohta, J.

1. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. Since 1999, the petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling the packaged edible oil all over India. The petitioner has also registered the brand name in the Trade Mark Registry in the year 2005, and has been using the trade mark/name. The petitioner has been selling its products under a brandname “Health Fit Toh Sab Fit”. This brand of the petitioner, according to the petitioner, over the years, has acquired goodwill and reputation in the market. Respondent no.1 is Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (hereinafter referred as 'FSSAI”) established under Section 4 of Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2006). Respondent no.2 is the Commissioner of Food Safety for the State of Maharashtra appointed under Section 30 of the Act of 2006. Respondent no.3 is designated officer (zone 1), and Assistant Commissioner (Food) appointed under Section 36 of the Act of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “DO”) and has passed an order impugned in the petition. Respondent No.4 is Food Safety and Standards Officer appointed (hereinafter referred to as “FSO”) under Section 37 of the Act of 2006, who has passed an order for seizure of the petitioner's goods. Respondent no.5 is also a Food Safety Officer. Respondent no.6 is the adjudicating officer (hereinafter referred to as “AO”) who functions under the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011. Respondent no.7 is a food analyst appointed under the provisions of Act of 2006 to analyse the samples and submit report of the same to respondent no.3.

3. On 16.10.2014, respondent no.4 along with his colleagues namely respondent no.5 and independent witnesses visited the depot of the petitioner located at ship no.9, Sharatchandraji Pawar Market Yard, Peth Road, Panchavati Nashik for the purpose of inspection. FSO, in accordance with the provisions of Act of 2006, collected 4 samples of one litre pouches of refined soyabeen oil, in the presence of an independent witness and attached a paper slip and prepared a memorandum in presence of the petitioner's representative and independent witnesses stating out the sampling and had the same executed by all present. On the same day of visit, FSO issued an order dated 16.10.2014 of seizure to Food Business Operation, i.e., the petitioner, seizing 2996 units of refined soyabeen oil (Health fit toh sab fit) 1 ltr. Pouches) weighing 2726.36 kgs. Bearing batch no.-LLL 007. The petitioner, by order was directed to keep the seized goods in safe custody till further orders. This seizure order was passed by FSO under section 38(1) of Act of 2006 on the ground that the packages might be in violation of section 26(1) and 26(2)(ii) of the Act of 2006. On the same day, FSO also issued a notice dated 16.10.2014 to petitioner informing the petitioner of the right to get the 4th part of the sample analyzed from authorized Food Analyst of his choice. FSO- respondent no.4 issued another notice dated 17.10.2014 informed the petitioner regarding the search and seizure of the petitioner's product and enquiring if the petitioner wishes to get the fourth part of the sample examined by an NABL accredited laboratory, in addition to parts sent to the public food analyst. The notice was received by the petitioner sometime in November 2014.

4. The petitioner in reply to the notice and order of seizure dated 16.10.2014, requested respondent no.4 to send the fourth sample to NABL accredited laboratory of the petitioner's choice. Respondent no.7 rendered its report in respect of petitioner's goods. The petitioner came to know about the same in last week of November 2014. On receipt of the report, the petitioner raised an objection to the report on the basis of these reports by the analyst which do not provide any reasons and the analysts have not applied their mind and not followed the procedure of law. Respondent no.4-FSO made application to DO in resp