Heard Mr. S. L. Agrawal, counsel appearing for the petitioners.

2. Heard Mrs. Chandra Prabha, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- State.

3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that most of the points which have been raised in this writ petition have been considered and decided in W.P.(C) No. 885 of 2014 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 29.08.2014 and accordingly, on the last date of hearing itself, he has confined this writ petition on a point of law which was neither raised nor considered in W.P.(C) No. 885 of 2014.

4. Counsel for the petitioners accordingly submits that the only point which is being argued in this case is as follows:-

“Whether impugned proceedings could have been initiated against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 and penalty could be imposed under section 52 of The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 in absence of the company namely, Reliance Retail Limited ( petitioner no. 1 ) been made party in the proceeding and whether the amount of penalty could have been realized from the company ( petitioner no. 1 )?”

5. The counsel f