SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(P&H) 4623

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
Itc Limited - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CWP No. 4941 of 2014 (O&M)
Decided On : 04-10-2018

Advocates Appeared:
R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate, with Mr. L.K.Bhushan, Ms. Raashi Beri, Mr. Arshdeep S. Cheema and Mr. Raghav Talwar, Advocates, for the Appellant; Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana, for the Appearing Party

The availability of a statutory remedy of appeal before the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal rendered the writ petition not maintainable.

Headnote:

Food Safety Standards - Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Officer - Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Section 68, Regulations 2.9.30, Rule 3.1(2) of the Food Safety and Standard Rules, 2011 - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer to summon the petitioner under Section 68 of the Act and the establishment of Food Safety Appellate Tribunals. The availability of the remedy of appeal before the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal was highlighted, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash a notice summoning him to join adjudication proceedings under Section 68 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, based on the inspection of iodized salt samples and alleged contravention of regulations.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petition was not maintainable in the presence of a statutory remedy of appeal before the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal, and dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal before the Tribunal.

Issues: The issues involved were the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer to initiate proceedings under the Act and summon an additional accused, and the availability of the remedy of appeal before the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the issues raised by the petitioner could be addressed before the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal, and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal.

JUDGMENT

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - The prayer made in this petition is for quashing the notice dated 23.10.2013 issued by respondent no.2 to the petitioner for allegedly impleading him in the adjudication proceedings initiated under section 68 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").

2. In brief, on 29.01.2013, at about 2.30 pm, the Food Safety Officer, Rohtak, inspected the premises of a retailer Amit Rewri and collected samples of iodized salt (Aashirvaad). The samples were sent to the Food Analyst who, in his report dated 14.02.2013, observed that black colour foreign matter in appreciable quantity has been found and held that the sample is not as per the standard laid down for edible common salt under Regulation 2.9.30 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations"). Thereafter, the Designated Officer, Rohtak, having the jurisdiction of the area, authorized the Food Safety Officer under Rule 3.1(2) of the Food Safety and Standard Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") to file an application for adjudication of the offence under the Act. On 02.09.2013, the Adjudicating Officer, Food Safety & Standards Act, Rohtak, issued notice to the retailer Amit Rewri to appear and join the adjudication proceedings and a similar notice was issued to the manufacturer (petitioner herein) on 23.10.2013. The said notice dated 23.10.2013 is under challenge at the instance of the petitioner who has been summoned to join the adjudication proceedings initiated in terms of Section 68 of the Act.

3. After notice, respondents no.2 to 4 have filed their reply and alleged that the retailer Amit Rewri had produced the bill regarding purchase of iodized salt (Aashirvaad) from the petitioner and on the basis of said documentary evidence, the Adjudicating Officer has summoned the petitioner while exercising his powers under Section 68 of the Act. It is further averred that the State Government has now established two Food Safety Appellate Tribunals vide notification No.S.O.65/C.A.34/2006/S.70/2013 dated 26.07.2013 at Ambala and Gurugram to hear appeals from the decision of Adjudicating Officer(s) under Section 68 of the Act. The said notification reads as under:-

    "Haryana Government Health Department

    Notification

    The 26th July, 2013

    No.S.O.65/C.A.34/2006/S.70/2013. -- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 70 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (Central Act 34 of 2006), the Governor of Haryana hereby establishes two Food Safety Appellate Tribunals each at Ambala and Gurgaon to her appeals from the decisions of Adjudicating Officer under Section 68 of the said Act.

    Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of the said section, the Governor of Haryana hereby appoints District and Sessions Judge, Ambala for revenue districts of Ambala, Panchkula, Yamuna Nagar, Kurukshetra, Kaithal, Karnal, Panipat, Jind, Hisar, Fatehabad and Sirsa and District and Sessions Judge, Gurgaon for the revenue districts of Gurgaon, Rewari, Mahendergarh, Mewat, Faridabad, Palwal, Sonepat, Rohtak, Bhiwani and Jhajjar to be the Presiding Officers of the said Tribunals.

    Navraj Sandhu

    Principal Secretary to Government Haryana,

    Health Department"

    4. The respondents have, thus, averred that the petitioner has the remedy of appeal against the impugned notice/order by which the petitioner has been asked to join the proceedings in terms of Section 68 of the Act.

    5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issues involved in the present case are as to whether the Adjudicating Officer has the power and jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the Act suo-moto or can summon an additional accused without the process having been initiated by the Designated Officer and as to whether the Designated Officer alone has the jurisdiction to launch or sanction adjudication proceedings

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top