Disposed

S.Pushpanathan v. The Commissioner Food safety and Standards

Madras HC9 Mar 2023WP/7190/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order sealing his shop and registering a criminal case. The court observed that an appeal was already pending against that order. Instead of deciding on merits, it directed the appeal authority to dispose of the pending appeal within four weeks after affording a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to dispose of the pending appeal within four weeks after affording a personal hearing.

S.Pushpanathan Vs The Commissioner Food safety and… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.7190 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.7190 of 2023 and WMP.No.7250 of 2023

¶7

S.Pushpanathan ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Commissioner Food Safety & Standards, Food Business Licensing & Registration Regulation, Chennai - 600 006.

¶10

The Designation Officer, Department of Food Safety & Drug Administration, Salem District.

¶11

The Inspector of Police, Kannankurichi Police Station, Salem District. ...Respondents

¶12

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.2697/A1/VuPaThaSa/2022-23 dated 26.12.2022 and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh, Spl.GP

¶15

1/7

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

W.P.No.7190 of 2023

¶19

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a Writ of

¶20

Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2^nd respondent in respect of the proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.2697/A1/VuPaThaSa/2022-23 dated 26.12.2022 and quash the same.

¶21

Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh, learned Special Government Pleader

¶22

takes notice for the respondents. In view of the consent expressed by the Learned counsel appearing for either side, this petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶23

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is running a provisional store in the name and style of "Omsakthi Maligai" for the past several years without any violation. While so, on 16.12.2022, the 3rd respondent has registered a false case against the petitioner in Crime No.952 /2022 for the offences under Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children)Act 2015 and Section 6(a), 6(b) & 24(1) of Cigarette & other Tobacco products Act 2003 on the ground that the petitioner was in 2/7

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.No.7190 of 2023

¶26

possession and selling banned Hannes and Cool Lips to the students. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed the present impugned order dated 26.12.2022 bearing Na.Ka.No.2697/A1/VuPaThaSa/2022-23, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to canvass his grievances and subsequently sealed the petitioner's shop. Aggrieved by the above said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. however, till date no orders have been passed on the same. Hence, the petitioner has came up with this Writ petition challenging the order of the 2nd respondent dated 26.12.2022.

¶27

Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶28

Though the petitioner has filed this Writ petition, seeking to set aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent bearing Na.Ka.No.2697/A1/ VuPaThaSa/2022-23, dated 26.12.2022, however, when this Court expressed its opinion that, as against the order of the 2nd respondent dated 26.12.2022, when the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent, once again, filing this Writ petition challenging the very 3/7

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.No.7190 of 2023

¶31

same order, without awaiting for the orders from the 1st respondent is not sustainable, learned counsel for the petitioner restricted the prayer and sought for direction of this Court to direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.

¶32

In view of above, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and without interfering with the order impugned in this Writ petition, issues direction to the petitioner to send a copy of the said appeal to the 1st respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of the said appeal, the 1st respondent shall dispose of the same within a period of four weeks thereafter, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and aggrieved persons, if any.

¶33

With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is

closed.

09.03.2023

4/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.No.7190 of 2023

¶39

skt

¶40

Speaking Order : Yes/ No Index : Yes/ No

¶41

¶42

The Commissioner Food Safety & Standards, Food Business Licensing & Registration Regulation, Chennai - 600 006.

¶43

The Designation Officer, Department of Food Safety & Drug Administration, Salem District.

¶44

The Inspector of Police, Kannankurichi Police Station, Salem District

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5/7

W.P.No.7190 of 2023

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

skt

W.P.No.7190 of 2023

and WMP.No.7250 of 2023

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

6/7

W.P.No.7190 of 2023

09.03.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

7/7

S.Pushpanathan v. The Commissioner Food safety and Standards

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Pushpanathan v. The Commissioner Food safety and Standards

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

M.Valliammal Vs Kalavathi

M/s. Tcp. Limited Vs State of Tamilnadu

G.Sudha, Vs The Puducherry University

S.Pushpanathan Vs The Commissioner Food safety and Standards

P.Velliyangiri, Vs The District Collector

G.Manikandan Vs The Chief General Manager