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 for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in this case is fully covered by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2012) 5 SCC 661 (Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited and analogous cases) where similar provisions as that of section 66 of The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 which deals with “offences by companies” was under consideration.

6. Counsel for the petitioners submits that he has made specific statement at para no. 43 of the writ petition that the appellate tribunal as per the provisions of Section 70 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 has not been constituted and therefore, the petitioners do not have any alternative remedy apart from under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submits that this statement of the petitioners has not been denied by the respondents in their counter-affidavit and the tribunal has not been constituted so far. He submits that appropriate orders may be passed in this writ petition confining it to the aforesaid issue which is not covered by the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No. 885 of 2014.

7. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 2 is an employee and petitioner no. 3 is the store manager of Reliance Retail Limited ( petitioner no. 1).

8. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that a proceeding was initiated against petitioner nos. 2 and 3 by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi under Section 3(zx) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 read with Section 26, 27 and 51 of the aforesaid Act and in the said proceeding, the petitioner no. 1 was never made party. The notices were issued only to petitioner nos. 2 and 3. He submits that pursuant to the notice issued to the petitioner nos. 2 and 3, authorized signatory of the petitioner no. 1 appeared, although the petitioner no. 1 was never made accused in the case, but, the Deputy Commissioner refused to entertain the authorized signatory of petitioner no. 1 as petitioner no. 1 was not an accused in the matter. Further, the Deputy Commissioner has recorded that the accused persons i.e. petitioner nos. 2 and 3 having not appeared in the said proceedings in spite of notice having been served upon them, therefore, there was no option but to proceed ex-parte against petitioner nos. 2 and 3.

9. He submits that thereafter, vide impugned order dated 19.12.2013, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi was pleased to impose penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 52 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 for non-compliance of regulation 2.2.2.10 of the Food Safety and Standard (Packaging and Labelling) Regulation, 2011 on the ground that the report submitted by the Food Analyst that the Vanaspati purchased from the store of the accused is misbranded falls within the scope of Section 3(zx) of F