Allowed

Karthikeyan.C v. Adjudicating Officer(Food Safty) and Sub Collector

Kerala HC22 Feb 2023WP(C)/6057/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging penalties for misbranded food due to an incomplete licence number on packets, the High Court of Kerala quashed the orders. The Court found the authorities failed to follow the mandatory procedure to take corrective action under Section 52(2) and noted no record of a guilty plea, rendering the fine erroneous.

What did the court decide?

Exhibits P3 and P4, namely the orders of the Adjudicating and Appellate Authorities imposing the fine, are quashed. The writ petition is allowed.

Karthikeyan.C Vs Adjudicating Officer(Food Safty) and Sub Collector — Kerala HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 6057 OF 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KARTHIKEYAN.C
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI,
SANTHA BHAVAN,KARUMKULAM, PUTHIYATHURA PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADV M.SREEKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 ADJUDICATING OFFICER(FOOD SAFTY) AND SUB COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2FOOD SAFETY OFFICER,
ARUVIKKARA CIRCLE,
GOVERNMENT HOMEO DISPENSARY BUILDING. V
ATTAKKULAM, ARUVIKKARA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695654.

¶12

BY SRI. JUSTIN JACOB, SR, GP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C). No. 6057 of 2019

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 22^nd day of February, 2023

¶18

The present writ petition is directed against the orders dated 10.01.2018 (Ext.P3) and 28.09.2018 (Ext.P4) of Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority, upholding the imposition of fine of Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶19

Petitioner is the proprietor of “NIRAPARA FOOD PRODUCTS” dealing with manufacturing and distribution of rice powder and wheat powder under the name and style “EAT N JOY”. On 04.07.2017, the Adjudicating Officer (Food Safety) and Sub Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, conducted inspection at Variety Store and purchased four packets of wheat flour of 500 gms and found that the licence number written on it was had only 11 digits instead of 14 and initiated proceedings under Section 52 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, for imposition of penalty for misbrandad food.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there wa s inadvertent omission of three digits and the petitioner ha d valid licence at the time of the inspection

¶21

¶22

WP(C). No. 6057 of 2019

¶23

which was renewed with effect from 09.04.2015 till 08.04.2020. Appeal preferred against the order has also been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner did not submit application for a period of three months before the expiry of the validity of the licence, expired on 01.02.2015. But that factor cannot be taken into consideration. No opportunity of hearing as provided under sub Section 2 of Section 52 of the Act has been given, nor this fact has been noticed by the appellate authority, thus the orders under challenge are wholly perverse and illegal.

¶24

On a contrary, the learned Government Pleader submitted that it is a mandatory requirement of law as per the provisions of the Act, any manufacture/proprietor having licence is required to mention the licence number. Only 10 digit of licence number was reflected on the packet whereas it should have been 14. The concurrent findings of fact cannot be interpreted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless there is gross illegality and violation of Rules or violation of principles of natural justice.

¶25

¶26

WP(C). No. 6057 of 2019

¶27

I have heard counsel for the parties and appraised in the paperbook.

¶28

The actual licence number was 11313001003404,

¶29

whereas the number written on the packet was 11313003404, leaving thereby that words ‘001’ is conspicuously wanting on account of misprint. Section 52 of the Act, 2006 prescribe the procedure for imposition Penalty for misbranded food. Same reads as under:

¶30

“Penalty for misbranded food- (1) Any person who whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is misbranded, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to three lakh rupees.

¶31

(2.) The Adjudicating Officer may issue a direction to the person found guilty of an offence under this section, for taking corrective action to rectify the mistake or such article of food shall be destroyed“

¶32

After having gone through the order of the

¶33

adjudicating officer, it is submitted that no procedure as prescribed under Section 2 of Section 52 of 2006 has been followed for taking corrective action to rectify the mistake or

¶34

¶35

WP(C). No. 6057 of 2019

¶36

to destroy such article of food. It is the matter of record that the wheat floor was not found to be substandard in the absence of any report of the analyst, except for the licence number.

¶37

I am of the view that the orders of the authorities imposing fine of Rs.1,00,000/- on the ground that the petitioner pleaded guilty is wholly erroneous for the reason that no such statement had been recorded pleading guilty. The appellate authority got swayed away in view of the erroneous findings rendered by the adjudicating authority and it cannot be permitted to sustain. Exts.P3 and P4 are quashed. Writ petition stands allowed.

¶38

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

¶39

mtk

¶40

WP(C). No. 6057 of 2019

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6057/2019

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶44

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.39/2017-18 OF
FOOD ANALYST DATED 15.7.2017.
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF LICENSE NO.11313001003404
DATED 2.2.2013 ISSUED BY THE FOOD SAFETY
AND STANDARDS AUTHORITY OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.P/22511/17
DATED 10.1.2018 OF 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.9.2018 IN
FSA NO.3/2018 OF FOOD SAFETY APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL(ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-III)
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF LICENSE NO.11315001000375
DATED 09.04.2015 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT
FOOD SAFETY COMMISSIONER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

Karthikeyan.C v. Adjudicating Officer(Food Safty) and Sub Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthikeyan.C v. Adjudicating Officer(Food Safty) and Sub Collector

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

Sajitha Vs the Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

P.v.George Tharakan Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Sameel K.S. Vs Director (Sss)

Mr.E.M.Abdul Rahman Vs the Official Liquidator

Thrissur Jilla Auto and Light Motors Union (Citu) Vs Kochurani

Haridas V.S. Vs Union of India