1

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Writ Petition (Cr) No. 220 of 2015

Ramakant Gupta, aged about 62 years, S/o Shri Devicharan Gupta By

Occupation Businessmen, R/o Near Rail Toli, Thana Ramnagar,

Gondia, Tahsil and Distt.Gondia, Maharastra

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Food and Safety

Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (CG)

2. District Magistrate, Distt.Rajnandgaon

3. Additional District Magistrate and Adjudicating Officer, Rajnandgaon

4. Food Safety Officer, Food and Medicine Department, Kalibadi,

Distt.Raipur

---- Respondents

For Petitioner

:

Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate

For Respondents

:

Mr. Arun Sao, Dy. A.G.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

C A V Order

12

/05/2016

1.

Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 28.11.2014 passed by the

Additional District Magistrate-cum-Adjudicating Officer under the

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter called as “the FSS

Act of 2006”), Rajnandgaon in Case No.01/F.S.S.A./2013, the

petitioner herein has challenged the impugned order by which the

said Authority in exercise of powers conferred under Section 51 of

the FSS Act of 2006 has imposed a penalty of

75,000/- to him for

violation of Section 26 (2) (I) of the FSS Act of 2006.

2.

Facts necessary to judge the legality, validity and correctness of the

2

impugned order are as under:-

2.1

That, on complaint made by the Station House Officer, Police

Station-Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon against the petitioner herein

for selling adulterated cow milk on 22.5.2012 at 12 at noon, the

Food Safety Officer served notice and took sample of cow milk

from the petitioner and prepared Form VA after making payment of

cost of the milk and four samples were prepared containing each of

500 grams and out of four samples, one sample was sent for its

analysis to the Food Analyst under Section 45 of the FSS Act of

2006. After analysis it was reported by the Food Analyst that

sample is unsafe under the Act as per standard laid down under the

Act of 2006 and Rules 2011 & Regulation made thereunder.

2.2

Against the report of the Food Analyst holding the sample to be

unsafe; the petitioner herein preferred an appeal challenging the

report of the Food Analyst dated 5.6.2012 before the Food Safety

Officer and accordingly, second sample was sent to the Referral

Food Laboratory, Pune on 12.7.2012 by the office of the

Designated Officer, in which it was reported that sample does not

conform to the standard of cow milk and thereafter it was reported

to the Commissioner, Food Safety vide letter dated 24.8.2012.

Designated Officer under FSS Act of 2006 while exercising the

powers conferred under Section 36 (3) (e) of the Act of 2006

accorded sanction for prosecution against the petitioner as the

case pertains to contravention of provisions of the Act punishable

3

with fine only. Thereafter, the Adjudicating Officer while exercising

the powers conferred under Section 68 of the FSS Act of 2006 has

passed the impugned order levying penalty of

75,000/- to the

petitioner for violation of the provisions contained in Section 26 (2)

(i) of the FSS Act of 2006.

2.3

Since the order passed by the Adjudicating Officer is appealable

before the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal and since the Tribunal

has not been constituted in the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, the

instant writ petition has been filed finding no remedy against the

order of the Adjudicating Officer as the revision preferred by the

petitioner was dismissed by the Court of Sessions, Rajnandgaon

holding the appeal under Section 77 of the FSS Act of 2006 is

maintainable before the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal.

3.

The present writ petition has been filed stating inter-alia that order

passed by the Adjudicating Officer under FSS Act of 2006 is not

accordance with law as reasonable and fair opportunity of hearing

which is mandatory under sub-section (2)