IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Writ Petition No.1046 of 2012

Sudhir Kapoor & another

……Petitioners

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & another

...Respondents

Mr. Jagdish Chandra Belwal and Mr. Suresh Kumar Mishra,

Advocates for the petitioners.

Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand.

Dated: 31.07.2017

Hon’ble V.K. Bist J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

Present petition has been filed for the following

relief:

“i.

Issue a writ order or direction in the

nature of certiorari quashing the impugned

order

(annexure-4)

dated

24.09.2012

passed

by

respondent

no.2

in

case

no.51/5 of 2012 State of Uttarakhand vs.

Chandra Kishore and others.”

3.

Section 70 of the Food Safety and Standards

Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides for

establishment of the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal to

hear appeals from the decisions of the Adjudicating Officer

under section 68 of the Act. At the time when order dated

24.09.2012 was passed, Food Safety Appellate Tribunal

was not functioning. Therefore, the petitioner had no

efficacious alternative remedy except to approach this

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The

2

writ petition filed by the petitioner was entertained and on

01.11.2012 following order was passed:-

“Having heard learned counsel for the

petitioners

and

taking

note

of

the

endorsement made by the Registry, it is

pertinent to mention that Section 76 of the

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006

(hereinafter referred to as the Act) is meant

for preferring appeal before the High Court

against the decision or order of a Special

Court.

Those

Special

Courts

are

constituted u/s 74 of the Act for the

purposes of trial of offences relating to

grievous injury or death of the consumer

for which punishment of imprisonment for

more than three years has been prescribed

under the Act. The said Section further

provides that these special courts shall be

constituted by the Central or the State

Government, as the case may be, with the

concurrence of the Chief Justice of the

High Court.

Learned counsel has argued that the

present petition has been filed assailing

the adjudication done by the Additional

District Magistrate of District U.S. Nagar

u/s 68 of the Act and against such

adjudication, the appeal shall be preferred

before the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal

established u/s 70 of the Act. A further

enactment has been made that against the

judgment of Tribunal, an appeal can be

preferred

before

the

High

Court,

as

envisaged u/s 71(6) of the Act.

Learned counsel has argued that

since

no

such

Tribunal

has

been

established in the State of Uttarakhand

within the meaning of Section 70 of the

Act, thus, the petitioners have no option

but to approach this Court by way of

instant petition u/s 226/227 of the

Constitution of India, against the order of

Adjudicating Officer, who is of the rank of

Additional District Magistrate.

3

The Court is quite convinced with

this argument and thus, admits the

petition for hearing.

Registry is directed to summon the

record of case no.51/5 of 2012, titled as

‘State of Uttarakhand Vs. Chand Kishore

and others’, from the court of Additional

District Magistrate/Adjudicating Officer,

U.S. Nagar.

List after six weeks.

Meanwhile, the fine, so imposed

against

the

petitioners,

by

way

of

impugned judgment, shall remain stayed

provided the petitioners deposit half of the

fine as per rules before the Adjudicating

Officer, U.S. Nagar, within two weeks from

today.

Stay application no.11839 of 2012 is

disposed of accordingly.”

4.

Today learned counsel for the parties submit

that Food Safety Tribunal has already been established at

Haldwani.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

he may be permitted to withdraw the