Dismissed

Priya Dutt Sharma v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC13 May 2019W.P.(C)/5165/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner who challenged a Food Safety Appellate Tribunal order stay condition. The Court held that the Tribunal had not declined to hear the appeal but had conditioned the stay on depositing a security, and since the petitioner failed to comply, the petition was not bona fide and was dismissed with costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with costs of ₹10,000 to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust.

Priya Dutt Sharma Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~40

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 5165/2019

¶4

PRIYA DUTT SHARMA ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr D. K. Mathur, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr Ramesh Singh, SC, GNCTD with Mr Chirayu Jain and Mr Ishan Agarwal, Advocates for GNCTD with Mr C. M. Krishna, DLA, Food Safety Deptt.,GNCTD.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R

¶9

% 13.05.2019

¶10

CM No.22898/2019

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

W.P.(C) 5165/2019

¶13

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 28.03.2019 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’) passed by the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal in FSAT No.11/19. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Officer had found the petitioner guilty of supplying substandard food articles based on an analysis report (Report No.FSS/375/2018 dated 25.04.2018).

¶14

Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the petitioner had preferred an appeal (FSAT 11/2019). In the said proceedings, the petitioner had also

¶15

sought stay of the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The learned Tribunal has acceded to the petitioner’s request and stayed the impugned order, subject to the petitioner furnishing a fixed deposit receipt (FDR) equivalent to the amount of penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority (that is, a sum of ₹2,20,000/-).

¶16

It is noticed that the matter was considered by the Tribunal on 03.05.2019, and on that date the petitioner had requested for further time to deposit the FDR. However, instead of depositing the same, the petitioner has now filed the present petition (although styled as a writ petition). 5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the appeal before the Tribunal under Section 70 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is a first appeal and, therefore, the hearing of the said appeal cannot be made conditional on the deposit of the penalty imposed. He submits that the Tribunal will not hear the appeal, unless the FDR as directed, is deposited. 6. The above contention is unmerited. It is relevant to note that the learned Tribunal has not declined to hear the appeal. It had stayed the order impugned therein – as requested by the petitioner – on the condition that the petitioner deposits the FDR equal to the amount of penalty. The question whether to grant a stay is a matter of discretion and the learned Tribunal has exercised a discretion by imposing the condition of deposit of the penalty. Clearly, if the FDR is not deposited the stay granted to the petitioner would not be operative. However, this does not mean that the petitioner’s appeal would not be heard.

¶17

The contention that the learned Tribunal would not hear the appeal is also unfounded. It is clear from the order dated 03.05.2019 that the appeal was partly heard on that date.

¶18

It is relevant to note that the petitioner had represented that the FDR would be deposited is evident from the order dated 03.05.2019. Having failed to fulfil this commitment, the petitioner has filed this present petition. 9. This Court is of the view that the present petition is thus not bona fide and the petitioner deserves to be visited with costs. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs quantified at ₹10,000/-. The cost shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust.

¶19

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶20

MAY 13, 2019 MK

Priya Dutt Sharma v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priya Dutt Sharma v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs the Secretary (Labour) & Anr.

Karina Jane Creed Vs Union of India & Anr.

Nirvikar Kaushik Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Shivam Medicos Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner Trade & Taxes & Ors.

Indira Printers Vs Union of India & Anr.

Sh. Bir Singh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mrs. Nirmala Prakash & Ors. Vs Senior Manager, Idbi Bank & Ors.

Chokha Ram Tiwari & Ors. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Karina Jane Creed Vs Union of India & Anr.

Kuldeep Singh Vs Union of India and Anr.

Daljit Singh Vs Union of India and Anr.

Atheeth Sanjeevan Vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Ors.

Col Suresh Kumar Joshi (Retd.) Vs Union of India and Anr.

Imran a Vs Hindustan Times Newsparper (English) and Ors.