This petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C with

the following prayer :-

"Issue a writ of certiorari or any other

appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the

order

dated

25.11.2015

passed

in

C.C.No.307/037/225/2015-16

on

the

file

of

Additional District Magistrate cum Adjudicating

Authority, Vijayapura (Annexure-A)."

2.

The brief facts of the case are as follows :-

The petitioner is a Proprietor of a Wholesale

Distributing Agency operating from the premises in APMC

Yard, Vijayapura and is engaged in the distribution of

various products, including instant noodles manufactured

3

by the ITC Limited under the brand name of “Sunfeast

Yippee! Noodles”. Sunfeast Yippee! noodles has got

different flavours namely “Classic Masala”, “Magic Masala”

and “Chinese Masala”. Each pack of the instant noodles

contain noodle pack with a sachet of masala mix with

cooking instructions provided on the pack label. The noodle

block is made from wheat flour and the sachet of masala

mix is made of spices, herbs, dehydrated vegetables etc.

The sample of the product label of “Sunfeast Yippee!

Classic Masala” is also produced before the court as

Annexure-B to the petition.

3.

It is contended that on 11.06.2015 the Food

Safety Inspector, picked up a sample of Sunfeast Yippee!

Noodles Classic Masala packet from the premises of the

petitioner and issued Form VA under Rule 2.4.1(3) of the

Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011. The collected

sample has been sent to the Food Analyst, Belgaum for

testing. On receipt of sample Food Analyst after analyzing

4

the sample, gave a report on 23.06.2015 opining as

under :-

"The sample conforms to the standards as

per above parameters, but it is misbranded as per

Rule 2.2.1(3) of rule 2.2 of Food Safety and

Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations,

2011.

Note : Due to non-availability of the facility

test for lead and flavour enhancers (MSG) could

not be performed. It is suggested to get the sample

analysed for the same, from NABL accredited or

referral laboratory."

4.

However, the sample was not tested for Mono

Sodium Glutamate [hereinafter referred to as ‘MSG’ for

short] as observed in the report itself. Despite, absence of

any method to ascertain presence of MSG in the sample,

Food Analyst arrives at a conclusion that the product is

misbranded.

5.

It is further contended that when the label

mentioned that there is no added MSG, the question of

misbranding product does not arise and therefore, the

5

further action based on the report given by the Food

Analyst is contrary to the Act and Rules.

6.

It is also contended that there is no Laboratory

established in Karnataka to find out the presence of MSG

in a given sample. When such being the factual aspect, the

report given by the Food Analyst as misbranded is per se

illegal and therefore, no action should be initiated against

the petitioner.

7.

Further, the first respondent - Food Safety

Inspector orally sought information from the petitioner

about the manufacturers’ details from whom he purchased

the product. Thereafter, petitioner provided necessary

information and he received the notice on 10.8.2015 from

the Additional District Magistrate – cum – Adjudicating

Authority, Vijayapura stating that action has been initiated

against the petitioner under the Food Safety and

Standards Act, 2006 [hereinafter referred to as ‘FSSA’ for

short] and the petitioner was required to appear before the

authority on 31.08.2015. Petitioner was also surprised to

6

note that the Adjudicating Authority by order dated

11.8.2015, provided an opportunity to the petitioner to get

the sample re-tested by Referral Laboratory. It is further

contended that such an opportunity was extended to the

petitioner only after the product has already been labeled

as misbranded and the petitioner was not provided with a

right to appeal the test report of the Food Analyst, before

the Designated Officer as is provided under Section 46 (4)

of