O R D E R

% 13.03.2019 VIBHU BAKHRU, J

1. Although, the present petition has been styled as writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it ought to be treated as an appeal under Section 71(6) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereafter ‗the FSS Act‘).

2. The petitioners herein have impugned an order dated 19.07.2018 (hereafter ‗the impugned order‘) passed by the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal (hereafter ‗the Tribunal‘). By the impugned order, the penalty imposed on the petitioners for non-disclosure of nutritional facts on the label of the food article, ‗Chilli Sauce‘, in terms of the Food Safety & Standards (Packaging and Labelling)

Regulations, 2011 (hereafter ‗the FSS Regulations), has been upheld.

3. Petitioner no.1 is the vendor of the food article, ‗Chilli Sauce‘ (the food article in question), recovered from petitioner no.1‘s restaurant. Petitioner no.2 to 4 are the suppliers of the food article in question, whereas petitioner no.5 is engaged in the manufacturing and packaging of the aforesaid food article.

4. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order, essentially, on the ground that the food article in question, by virtue of its nature, composition and ingredients, is exempted from declaring Nutritional information on the label under the exemptions provided to such products in terms of the proviso to Regulation 2.2.2.3 of the FSS Regulations. Petitioner nos. 1 to 4 further contend that being the vendor and suppliers of the article in question, they have not altered the food article in question obtained from the manufacturer (petitioner no.5) by any means and hence, they are entitled to claim the defence of due diligence under Section 80 of the FSS Act.

Factual Background

5. On 14.06.2012, the Food Safety Officer (FSO) lifted a sample of the food article – green ‗Chilli Sauce‘ – from the premises of petitioner no.1. The said food article was picked by the FSO for analysis under the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (the FSS Act). The analyst submitted its report, wherein it was found that the label of the said bottle did not specify ―nutritional information‖ in terms of Regulation 2.2.2.3 and 2.2.2.10 of the Regulations. Accordingly, the said sample was held to be misbranded. 6. Taking the aforesaid report into consideration, the FSO instituted a complaint before the Adjudicating Officer against the petitioners in this regard. By an order dated 03.09.2015 (which is also impugned in the present petition), the Adjudicating Officer held the petitioners guilty of violating the provisions of the FSS Act and the Regulations thereunder and further imposed a penalty of ₹1,00,000/-

each on all the petitioners under the provisions of the FSS Act.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred five separate appeals before the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The said appeals were disposed of by a common judgment dated 19.08.2018 (the impugned order), whereby the Tribunal absolved the petitioners of the alleged violation under Regulation 2.2.2.10 of the FSS Regulations. However, the Tribunal upheld the penalty of ₹1,00,000/- each imposed upon the petitioners for non- declaration of nutritional facts values on the label of the bottle of ‗Chilli Sauce‘ (the food article), and thus violating Regulation 2.2.2.3 of the FSS Regulations. The Tribunal observed that the said food article is comprised of more than one ingredient, and in that view, it is not exempted under the proviso of Regulation 2.2.2.3 of the Regulations.

Reasons and Conclusion

8. The principal question that arises for consideration in the present case is whether petitioner no.1 can be held guilty of misbranding of the product in question – the bottle of chilli sauce recovered from the premises of petitioner no.1.

9. A bottle of chilli sauce, which is manufactured by petitioner no.5, was recovered from the restaurant run by petitioner no.1 on 14.06.2012. The Recovery Challan indicates that the sai