Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(BOM) 2930
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
RAJESH S. PATIL, J
The State of Maharashtra, Through Food Safety Officer Smt. Pradnya P. Surse, Jalna – Appellant
Versus
Pankaj Gupta, Nominee, Adani Wilmar Limited, Kota – Jaipur Highway, Silor Road, Bandi, Rajasthan (India) – Respondent
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 09 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP
For the Respondents:Mr. S. V. Dixit, Advocate, Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Sr. Counsel as Amicus Curiae
An appeal against an order of the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal must be considered a Civil Appeal under Section 71(6) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, rejecting maintainability of Appeal from Order.
Headnote:(A) Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Section 71(6) - Maintainability of Appeal from Order - The court examined whether an order from the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal could be contested in Civil or Criminal side of High Court - It was determined that such Appeal must be deemed as Civil - The appeal was found not maintainable as an Appeal from Order. (Paras 2, 10)
(B) Appeal Procedures - The distinction between Civil and Criminal Appeals under the FSS Act was clarified, noting that appeals under Section 71(6) should be classified as Civil Appeals, while those under Section 76 relate to Criminal matters - Conversion of Appeal from Order into Civil First Appeal was permitted. (Paras 6, 12)
Facts of the case:
The State of Maharashtra challenged the order of the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal regarding food safety regulations, with debate surrounding the maintainability of the appeal under the FSS Act.
Findings of Court:
Appeal from Order is not maintainable and should be treated as a Civil First Appeal before the Single Judge of the High Court.
Issues: The main issues were the appropriate side for appeal under the FSS Act and the definition of an Appeal from Order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an order from the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal could only be contested as a Civil First Appeal under Section 71(6) of the FSS Act, rejecting the Appeal from Order as not valid.
Result: Appeal from Order is not maintainable and is converted into a Civil First Appeal.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to food safety appellate tribunal order (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. objection on maintainability of appeal from order (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. understanding of appeals under fss act (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. civil appeal implications of fss act (Para 9) |
| 5. conversion of appeal and procedural directions (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. acknowledgement of amicus curiae contribution (Para 13) |
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON : 12.12.2022 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 23.12.2022 JUDGMENT : -
1. This Appeal from Order is filed challenging the Judgment and Order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal, Jalna.
2. At the initial stage, the Advocate appearing for the respondent raised an objection about the maintainability of the “Appeal from Order”. Hence, this matter was heard only on the issue of maintainability of Appeal from Order, which challenges the Judgment and Order passed by the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal under Section 71 (6) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 [hereinafter referred to as “FSS Act”]. The questions before this Court are, Whether an order passed by Food Safety Appellate Tribunal, which is established under Section 70 of the FSS Act, can be challenged:
(i) Before Civil Side of High Court or at Criminal Side of High Court.
(ii)Whether the challenge under Section 71 (6) of the FSS Act, 2006 can be by way of “Appeal from Order”.
3. The State of Maharashtra through it’s Food Safety Officer have filed the present Appeal from Order under the provisions of Section
71(6) of the FSS Act.
SUBMISSIONS :
4. The Counsel for the respondents has preliminarily raised objection about maintainability of Appeal from Order. Therefore, matter is heard only on maintainability and not on merits. The Counsel for respondents submitted that the provision of Section 71 (6) of the FSS Act mentions that an order of the Tribunal can be challenged by way of an Appeal to High Court. There is no mention of Appeal from Order in the said sub-section. Therefore, in clear terms, an Appeal from Order will not be tenable before this Court. Advocate for the respondent further argued that taking into consideration the provisions of the FSS Act and more particularly Section 68 thereof, it only refers to adjudication by the Addl. District Magistrate of the District for the purpose of adjudication and further refers to penalty. So also, (3)(a) of the FSS Act states that all the proceedings before him shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Section 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code and further sub-section (b) mentions that, it should be deemed to be a Court for the purpose of Section 345 and 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (4) refers to quantum of penalty. Further, Section 69 refers to Power to Compound Offences. Further, (3) refers to Section 193 and 228 and Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Further, Section 73 refers to offences triable by Special Court and Section 74 refers to Special Court and Public Prosecutor. Hence, the correct course of action for the State should have been to file Appeal at Criminal Side, under Section 71 (6) of the FSS Act. The learned Counsel further submits that if the present proceeding of “Appeal from Order” is withdrawn and Criminal Appeal is filed, his client has no objection for the same.
6. The learned Amicus Curiae, who appeared on notice of this Court, has shown to me Chapter X of the FSS Act and submitted that there are two kind of appeals provided under Chapter X, one would be an Appeal before the Civil Side of this Court and another would be at the Criminal Side to the Division Bench.
7. He further referred to the provisions of Section 68 (1), which states that for the purpose of adjudication under this Chapter, an Officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate of the District, where the alleged offence is committed, shall be notified by the State Government as Adjudicating Officer. Therefore, according to him, an Addition
