By the Court.—This petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 31 July 2013 passed by the Adjudicating Officer/Additional District Magistrate (F & R), Jaunpur (the Adjudicating Officer) by which a penalty of Rs. 1,25,000/- has been imposed on the petitioner-TATA Chemicals Limited (the petitioner) under Section 26/52 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (the Act) for the reason that the food product in question was misbranded and had violated Regulation 2.3.1(5) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 (the Packaging Regulations).

2. It is stated that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner after a seizure of a packet of ‘TATA SALT’ which also bore the words “HAVE YOU TRIED? TATA I-SHAKTI PULSES” and ultimately though the salt was found to be in conformity with the standards laid down in the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 (the Additives Regulations), but the statement contained in the packet referred to above was found to have violated the Packaging Regulations.

3. Sri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner assisted by Sri Raghav Nayar, Sri Rishabh Kumar and Sri Akshat Srivastava submitted that the said information appearing on the ‘TATA SALT’ packet does not amount to misbranding inasmuch as it does not carry any statement which can be said to be false, misleading or deceptive. It is, therefore, his submission that the impugned order imposing penalty deserves to be set aside. In support of this contention, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Parakh Foods Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, (2008) 4 SCC 584.

4. Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has, however, supported the impugned order and has contended that it does not require any interference by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 70 of the Act before the Food Safety and Appellate Tribunal (the Appellate Tribunal).

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the statutory alternative remedy is not available to the petitioner as the Presiding Officer of the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 70 of the Act has not been appointed as yet.

6. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

7. The preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents that this petition should be dismissed as there is a statutory alternative remedy available to the petitioner cannot be accepted for the reason that the Presiding Officer of the Appellate Tribunal has not been appointed as yet.

8. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties on merits, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Act and the Regulations.

9. Section 3(zf) of the Act defines ‘misbranded food’ and is reproduced below :

“3(zf) “misbranded food” means an article of food-

(A) if it is purported, or is represented to be, or is being-

(i) offered or promoted for sale with false, misleading or deceptive claims either;

(a) upon the label of the package, or

(b) through advertisement, or

(ii) sold by a name which belongs to another article of food; or

(iii) offered or promoted for sale under the name of a fictitious individual or company as the manufacturer or producer of the article as borne on the package or containing the article or the label on such package; or

(B) if the article is sold in packages which have been sealed or prepared by or at the instance of the manufacturer or producer bearing his name and address but-

(i) the article is an imitation of,