IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 46/2014(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT SUSHEELA S D/O LATE L.SEETHARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.22/191, 1ST CROSS BHRAMARAMBA EXTENSION CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 313 ... PETITIONER (BY SMT.DIVYA KRISHNA, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001. REPRESENTD BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE FOOD SAFETY OFFICER FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS AUTHORITY CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHAMRAJANAGAR TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR-571313.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA. FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE R-2 DATED 6.12.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-G & QUASH THE ORDER OF THE R-2 DATED 18.12.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-M.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This petition is directed against the order dated 6.12.2013 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure- G whereby the licence granted in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled.
2. The petitioner is the proprietor of Akshaya Aqua (Pure Water Centre), a water purification plant. The petitioner had obtained the licence under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short “the Act”) for installation of water purification plant in Chamarajanagar. Pursuant to that licence, the petitioner had installed the water purifier plant and was supplying water to the public through wending machine. By order dated 6.12.2013, the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-G has cancelled the licence of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is supplying water through can and mini tanker. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. Smt. Divya Krishna, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 32 of the Act, the authority has to first give notice and after hearing the parties has to pass order either for suspension or cancellation of the licence. Without following the procedures as contemplated under law, the respondent authority has cancelled the licence issued to the petitioner. She has denied the allegation that the petitioner was supplying the water through can and mini tanker. Hence, she sought for allowing the writ petition.
4. Per contra, Smt. Niloufer Akbar, the learned AGA appearing for respondents submits that the petitioner has remedy under Section 32(4) of the Act for filing an appeal against the order of suspension, cancellation or revocation of licence. She further submitted that the petitioner has not obtained ISI Certificate from the competent authority. Hence, she sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had obtained licence for installation of water purification plant. On the allegations that the petitioner was supplying the water through can and mini tanker and on the ground that the petitioner has not obtained ISI certificate from the competent authority, the respondent-authority has cancelled the licence issued to the petitioner.
7. Section 32(4) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 reads as under:
32(4) Any person who is aggrieved by-
(a) an improvement notice; or (b) refusal to issue a certificate as to; or (c) cancellation or suspension or revocation of licence under this Act, may appeal to the Commissioner of Food Safety whose decision thereon, shall be final.
8. In view of remedy available to the petitioner under Section 32(4) of the Act to file an appeal against the order passed by the authority canceling the licence of the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of.
9. The petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal before the competent authority within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Competent authority is directed to dispose of the appeal within four weeks from the date of filing the appeal by the petitioner.
10. The interim order granted by this Court will enure to the benefit of the petitioner, till the appeal is disposed of by the competent authority.
Sd/- JUDGE DM