Dismissed

M/S Amit Vgetable Oils Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U P and 5 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2022WRIC/35078/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging a suspension of manufacturing and sale of palmolein oil due to sub-standard quality. The court declines to interfere as the test report substantiated the danger to public health, noting that legal challenges regarding testing timelines belong in the pending appeal against the report.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; suspension order of Designated Officer upheld.

M/S Amit Vgetable Oils Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U P and 5… — Consumer Protection | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35078 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Amit Vgetable Oils Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U P And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

The petitioner has assailed an order dated 12.8.2021 passed by Designated Officer, Food Safety and Drug Administration Office, Jaunpur suspending the manufacture, storage, sale of Refined Palmolein oil and granting time to the petitioner to take remedial measures to make it fit for human consumption. It has also been observed in the said order that thereafter a fresh report will be obtained and in case a favourable report is submitted, the license/registration will be restored. On the contrary, if the above directions are not complied with, the license/registration will be cancelled.

¶6

The said order came to be passed on account of the fact that the sample of Refined Palmolein oil drawn from the petitioner's premises had failed upon being tested in accordance with the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The test report is to the following effect:-

¶7

"On the basis of tests performed, The sample does not conforms to the standard of Refined Palmolein oil in respect to Acid Value, Peroxide Value and Rancidity is also positive. Hence the sample is Substandard & Unsafe."

¶8

Upon receipt of the test report, a show cause notice dated 11.8.2021 was issued to the petitioner calling upon it to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be penalized under Sections 51 and 59(i) of the Act for alleged violation of Section 26(2)(ii) and (i) of the Act. The show cause notice also states that the petitioner has remedy of challenging the test report by filing appeal within 30 days. On the next date, the impugned suspension order was issued.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the sample was tested after the prescribed statutory period of 14 days and therefore, entire proceedings are illegal. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon Food Safety and Standards Regulation, 2011, particularly Clause 2.4.5 (3) thereof, whereunder it is provided that the Food Analyst in-

¶10

charge of the accredited laboratory shall analyze the sample within fourteen days from the date of receipt of the sample.

¶11

The proviso to the said provision stipulates that in case the sample cannot be analysed within fourteen days from the date of its receipt, the Food Analyst/in-charge of the accredited laboratory, shall inform the Designated Officer and the Commission of Food Safety giving reasons and specify the time to be taken for analysis.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner while making oral submissions submitted that the petitioner has filed an appeal against the test report. On query made by the court as to where the said disclosure has been made, he submitted that he made the submission in this regard on basis of oral instructions and there is no assertion made in the writ petition in this behalf.

¶13

In case the petitioner has filed appeal against the test report, as orally submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, all these issues will be examined in the said appeal. Therefore, we abstain from expressing any final opinion, lest it may influence the decision in the appeal. In case, the petitioner has not already filed the appeal, it can always avail the said remedy.

¶14

The impugned suspension order has been passed in view of the fact that the sample was found to be sub-standard and unsafe for human consumption. If the test report is correct, in that event, the Palmolein oil in question if permitted to be sold will be detrimental to the public health at large. The petitioner has already been given opportunity to show cause where it can take all the pleas.

¶15

In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of suspension or with the findings of the lab report dated 7.8.2021, also impugned in the instant petition.

¶16

The petition is disposed of subject to the above observations.

¶17

Order Date :- 4.1.2022 Kirti

¶18

(Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, J) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J)

M/S Amit Vgetable Oils Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U P and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Amit Vgetable Oils Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U P and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.K. Srivastava Vs State of U P and 9 Others

Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Amresh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Priyanka Singhal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shail Kumari Vs District Magistrate and 4 Others

Daniel Albert Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others