The Court notes that although the original order passed by the Licensing Authority on 04 April 2018 was based solely on the ground of a failure on the part of the petitioner to explain from where the poultry items had been sourced, the Revisional Authority has gone far beyond and has proceeded to hold that the petitioner had also violated paragraphs 7.04 and 9.04 of the sanitary and hygienic requirements for retail meat shops as prescribed under the Act. It also records that the petitioner had failed to adhere to the hygienic and sanitary conditions which were mandated under the Act and the regulations framed thereunder. Viewed in that sense, it is manifest that the Revisional Authority has proceeded to record adverse findings against the petitioner on grounds which did not even form part of the original adjudication. Regard must also be had that even the original notice did not call upon the petitioner to show cause in respect of an alleged violation of hygiene requirements stipulated under the Regulations. In view thereof, this Court is of the considered opinion that although the order passed by the Revisional Authority would merit being set aside, the Licensing Authority must be granted liberty to examine the premises of the petitioner from the angle of compliance with the requirements placed by statute and to reconsider and review the order of 04 April 2018 if the petitioner is otherwise found to be in compliance with all statutory provisions. Accordingly the Court provides as under:-
