Dismissed

M/S Deccan Sugar Private Limited v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC9 Dec 2014WP/338/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a penalty order under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The Court held that since facts were involved and an Appellate Tribunal had been created, it was not desirable for the Court to decide on the merit.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed on the ground that the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal should first determine the facts and legality of the order.

M/S Deccan Sugar Private Limited Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

-:(1):-

¶2

338

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 338 OF 2013

¶6

M/S DECCAN SUGAR PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Bharuka D.S. APP for Respondents: Mr. K. S. Patil. ***

¶9

CORAM: T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATED: 9th DECEMBER, 2014.

¶10

PER COURT:

¶11

The petition is filed to challenge the order made by Adjudicating Officer, Assistant Commissioner of Food and Drugs Administration, Aurangabad dated 21^st February, 2013. In the matter bearing No.32 of 2012 the Adjudicating Officer has made order against the petitioners that they have contravened the provisions of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and particularly the provisions of section 26 (1), 26 (2) (II)(V) and Section 3 (Zf)(B)(II) and of the Regulations made under the Act

¶12

-:(2):-

¶13

338

¶14

bearing No.2.2.2 (8) and it is held that they are liable to the penalty which can be imposed under section 52 and 58 of the Act. Each petitioner is directed to pay the penalty of Rs.25,000/-. Heard both the sides.

¶15

The learned counsel for the Petitioner mainly submitted that there is no contravention at all of aforesaid provisions. He submitted that there was a batch number on the label and there was no misbranding as the description of the contents was clearly mentioned on the label. He submitted that only because there was a picture of Saunf on the label it cannot be said that there was something misleading on the label.

¶16

Affidavit in reply is filed by the Respondent. The Respondent has contended that there was a contravention of the aforesaid provisions. It is further contended that under the Act the remedy of appeal is available but that remedy is not availed and so the present proceeding is not tenable.

¶17

The learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the case of the Supreme Court in the case between “ Bal Kishan Thapar V/s Municipal Corporation of Delhi” [ Criminal Appeal No.105 of

¶18

-:(3):-

¶19

338

¶20

1975 decided on 9^th March, 1979] . In view of the facts of that case, the Apex Court held that the words used were not misleading and it was not a case of misbranding. One case of Madras High Court in the case of “ K. Ganesan and others V/s The Food Inspector ” reported in 2009 (1) FAC 261 , was cited. In view of the facts of that case the High Court held that there was nothing misleading on the label and it was not a case of misbranding. The proceeding was quashed in the said case. The prosecution was filed under the provisions of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The first proceeding was also under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. One more case reported as 2012 (1) FAC 467 between “ M/s. Foodlever India Pvt. Ltd. V/s Senior Inspecting Officer and another ” [Madras High Court] was cited. The facts of this case were also different.

¶21

On the point of maintainability of the present proceeding, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the case reported as 2009 (1) FAC 1 between “ Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd. And others V/s State of Maharashtra and another ”. In that case, the Apex Court held that even when alternate

¶22

338

¶23

-:(4):-

¶24

remedy of revision was available as against summons issued, it was open to the High Court to use the jurisdiction given under section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶25

The scheme of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 shows that authorities are created for enforcement of the Act. There are separate chapters for offences and penalties (Chapter No.X) and for adjudication and Food Safety Appellate Tribunal (Chapter No.X). The order under challenge is made under Chapter X and it is of Adjudicating Officer appointed under section 68 of the Act. Sections 70 and 71 of the Act show that Appellate Tribunal is required to be created for filing appeals against the decisions of Adjudicating Officer. Along with the affidavit, the respondent has produced circulars showing that the Adjudicating Officers are appointed and Appellate Tribunals are also created in this State. Present matter was filed on 3^rd April, 2013 and the circular creating and Appellate Tribunal is dated 18^th March, 2013. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that it is not desirable for this Court to decide to take decision on the legality and propriety of the order made by Adjudicating Officer. Questions of facts are involved and it is desirable that the Appellate Tribunal

¶26

-:(5):-

¶27

338

¶28

take decision on it first. This Court is avoiding to discuss the merits in the contentions made by learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶29

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

¶30

[T. V. NALAWADE, J.]

¶31

Dt.09/12/2014 ans/338

M/S Deccan Sugar Private Limited v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Deccan Sugar Private Limited v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradnya Sidharth Sughande and Others Vs Sidharth Shivram Sughande

Mohammad Vazir Shaikh and Others Vs Roshan Mohammad Shaikh and Others

Umesh Dilip Goyar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dr. Sushma Arun Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Mahendra Manikrao Kondekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Namdeo Chindhu Koli Vs Ananda Suka Koli