Court upheld alternative remedies over direct intervention, reinforcing procedural hierarchy in adjudications under food safety regulations.

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

24.07.2025

1. Heard Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:

“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the Adjudicating OfÏcer, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.).

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to Exonerate the appellants from liability under Section 52 of the FSS Act, 2006;

10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to in the alternative, reduce the penalty to a reasonable and nominal amount, in the interest of justice.

10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioners together with cost of the petition.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petition challenging the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the Adjudicating OfÏcer (Additional District Magistrate), Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), whereby the petitioners have been held liable under Section 52 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short, ‘Act of 2006’) and jointly fined Rs. 3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Only).

4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations arose out of an inspection conducted on 03.11.2022 at the premises of M/s Mohanam Big Bazaar, where the respondent collected a sample of packed suji (semolina) suspected to be misbranded. Sample collection was duly done using Form 5-K in the presence of witnesses. He also contended that the 4^th part of the sealed sample was sent to the State Referral Laboratory, Raipur, which opined in its report dated 03.02.2023 that the product was misbranded, citing: Absence of declaration regarding preservatives or artificial color; omission of the mandatory green veg logo; incomplete or inadequate labeling. Based on this report, the respondent filed a complaint and the Adjudicating OfÏcer, vide the impugned order dated 04.06.2025, imposed a penalty under Section 52 of the Act of 2006, without appreciating the true facts and legal distinction. Hence, this petition.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submit that the petitioners have alternative remedy to challenge the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 by filing an appeal under Section 70 of the Act of 2006 before the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the writ petition along with the annexures annexed in this case.

7. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the availability of an alternative remedy for the petitioners to file an appeal before the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal under Section 70 of the Act of 2006, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in the present petition. The petitioners are at liberty to pursue their statutory remedy of appeal, which would provide an appropriate Forum for redressal of their grievances.

8. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/-