Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 28.11.2014 passed by the Additional District Magistrate-cum-Adjudicating Officer under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter called as “the FSS Act of 2006”), Rajnandgaon in Case No.01/F.S.S.A./2013, the petitioner herein has challenged the impugned order by which the said Authority in exercise of powers conferred under Section 51 of the FSS Act of 2006 has imposed a penalty of Rs. 75,000/- to him for violation of Section 26 (2) (I) of the FSS Act of 2006.

2. Facts necessary to judge the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order are as under:-

2.1 That, on complaint made by the Station House Officer, Police Station-Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon against the petitioner herein for selling adulterated cow milk on 22.5.2012 at 12 at noon, the Food Safety Officer served notice and took sample of cow milk from the petitioner and prepared Form VA after making payment of cost of the milk and four samples were prepared containing each of 500 grams and out of four samples, one sample was sent for its analysis to the Food Analyst under Section 45 of the FSS Act of 2006. After analysis it was reported by the Food Analyst that sample is unsafe under the Act as per standard laid down under the Act of 2006 and Rules 2011 & Regulation made thereunder.

2.2 Against the report of the Food Analyst holding the sample to be unsafe; the petitioner herein preferred an appeal challenging the report of the Food Analyst dated 5.6.2012 before the Food Safety Officer and accordingly, second sample was sent to the Referral Food Laboratory, Pune on 12.7.2012 by the office of the Designated Officer, in which it was reported that sample does not conform to the standard of cow milk and thereafter it was reported to the Commissioner, Food Safety vide letter dated 24.8.2012. Designated Officer under FSS Act of 2006 while exercising the powers conferred under Section 36 (3) (e) of the Act of 2006 accorded sanction for prosecution against the petitioner as the case pertains to contravention of provisions of the Act punishable with fine only. Thereafter, the Adjudicating Officer while exercising the powers conferred under Section 68 of the FSS Act of 2006 has passed the impugned order levying penalty of Rs. 75,000/- to the petitioner for violation of the provisions contained in Section 26 (2) (i) of the FSS Act of 2006.

2.3 Since the order passed by the Adjudicating Officer is appealable before the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal and since the Tribunal has not been constituted in the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, the instant writ petition has been filed finding no remedy against the order of the Adjudicating Officer as the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Court of Sessions, Rajnandgaon holding the appeal under Section 77 of the FSS Act of 2006 is maintainable before the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal.

3. The present writ petition has been filed stating inter-alia that order passed by the Adjudicating Officer under FSS Act of 2006 is not accordance with law as reasonable and fair opportunity of hearing which is mandatory under sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the FSS Act of 2006 was not afforded to the petitioner. No enquiry was made before recording a finding that the petitioner has committed contravention of the provisions of the Act of 2006 and Rules and Regulation made thereunder and therefore, order of the Adjudicating Officer deserves to be set aside.

4. Respondents No.1 to 4 have filed their return stating inter-alia that the petitioner was found selling sub-standard cow milk, accordingly, sample of milk was taken and analysis was made and it was found that milk does not conform to standard of cow milk in its report dated 27.7.2012 and therefore, imposition of fine against the petitioner is absolutely justified and no interference is warranted in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. I hav