Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Prabin Phukan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam – Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 698 of 2024
Decided on : 22-02-2024
Improvement Notice - Food Safety - Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Section 32, 36, 37, 38 - The court discussed the authority and jurisdiction of the Designated Officer and Food Safety Officer under the FSS Act, 2006. It found that the Food Safety Officer did not have the power, authority, and jurisdiction to issue the Improvement Notice, and therefore set it aside.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing and distributing packaged drinking water, received an Improvement Notice from the Food Safety Officer for non-compliance with BIS Certificate and FSSAI License requirements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Food Safety Officer did not have the authority to issue the Improvement Notice, as only the Designated Officer had the power to do so.
Issues: The legality and validity of the Improvement Notice issued by the Food Safety Officer without the requisite authority and jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Improvement Notice issued by the Food Safety Officer was without power, authority, and jurisdiction, and therefore not sustainable in law.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Improvement Notice issued by the Food Safety Officer, clarifying that it would not preclude the competent authority under the FSS Act, 2006 from initiating appropriate action.
JUDGMENT :
The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred assailing the legality and validity of an Improvement Notice dated 02.01.2024 issued to the petitioner by the Food Safety Officer, Golaghat [the respondent no. 6].
2. The projected case of the petitioner is that the petitioner started a business at Chandmari, Golaghat for manufacture and distribution of packaged drinking water in 20 litres bottles in the year 2021. For the purpose of carrying out the business, the petitioner has got himself registered with the Commissionerate of Food Safety, Health & Family Welfare Department, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India [FSSAI] vide Registration Certificate no. 20321120000138 under the Food Safety and Standards [FSS] Act, 2006. The Registration Certificate was issued on 18.09.2021 and the same has a validity period up-to 17.09.2026. Accordingly, the petitioner has started manufacturing and distributing packaged drinking water in 20 litres bottles with the brand name of ‘Leeya’. Apart from obtaining a trade licence from the jurisdictional Municipal Authority, that is, the Municipal Board, Golaghat, the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has got the sample of his packaged drinking water analysed by the Food Analyst as required under the Food Safety and Standards [Food Products Standards and Food Additives] Regulations, 2011 and the Food Analyst after analyzing the sample, had submitted a report that the petitioner’s sample was found chemically satisfactory with respect to the test carried out. The petitioner is also registered with the Ministry of Micro Small, and Medium Enterprises, Government of India as a micro enterprise under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development [MSMED] Act, 2006.
3. When the petitioner is carrying out the manufacturing and distribution of packaged drinking water in 20 litres bottles under the brand name of ‘Leeya’, the petitioner has been served with the impugned Improvement Notice dated 02.01.2024 whereby the petitioner has inter alia been asked to produce the Bureau of Indian Standards [BIS] Certificate and to apply for FSSAI License. By serving the said Improvement Notice, the petitioner has been asked to comply with the conditions mentioned therein within a period of 7 [seven] days. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.
4. Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Health and Family Welfare Department, Assam for respondent nos. 1 to 6; and Mr. S. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 7.
5. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned Improvement Notice is being assailed on the ground that the said Improvement Notice has been issued by the Food Safety Officer, Golaghat, O/o the Designated Officer, Food Safety, Golaghat under the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 [‘the FSS Act, 2006’, for short], who does not have the authority and jurisdiction to issue such an Improvement Notice. It is the contention that only a Designated Officer, appointed under the FSS Act, 2006 has the authority and jurisdiction to issue such an Improvement Notice.
6. Mr. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Health and Family Welfare Department has submitted that as the petitioner is manufacturing and distributing packaged drinking water without compliance of the BIS Certificate, etc, the Improvement Notice has been served upon him. Mr. Gogoi after obtaining instructions received from the Commissioner of Food Safety, Health & Family Welfare Department, has fairly submitted that the Food Safety Officer is not the Designated Officer under the FSS Act, 2006.
7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials on record.
8. Chapter VII of the FSS Act, 2006 has mentioned about authorities responsible for enforcement of the provisions of the FSS
The central legal point established is that the authority and jurisdiction to issue Improvement Notices under the FSS Act, 2006 lie with the Designated Officer, and not with the Food Safety Officer.
The manner of doing a particular act as prescribed under a statute must be followed, and an authority cannot assume a jurisdiction that has not been conferred upon it.
Point of Law : Conviction of a food business operator –Notice - right of hearing to petitioner before passing the impugned notice of prohibition was an absolute necessity.
The court ruled that prohibition on manufacturing under a brand name requires adherence to natural justice principles, emphasizing the right to a hearing before administrative actions that have signi....
Prohibitory orders under the Food Safety and Standards Act must comply with the principles of natural justice, including providing a show cause notice before license suspension.
Food Business Operators must demonstrate compliance with safety standards, and failure to appeal against adverse findings negates claims of exemption.
Prosecution under the Food Safety and Standards Act requires a confirming report from the Referral Laboratory; divergence in findings precludes legal action.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
