Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12474 of 2021 Petitioner :- M/S Tapan Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prateek Rai,Devid Kumar Singh,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
Present writ petition is preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
"i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.3.2021 passed by the Designated Officer, Food Safety and Drug Administration, District Agra rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner company at the threshold on the ground that it is not in the prescribed form;
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Designated Officer, Food Safety and Drug Administration, District Agra be to indicate to the petitioner company the errors in the appeal, if any, give the petitioner company an opportunity to rectify the same; and decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner company afresh on merits within such period of time as this Hon'ble Court may stipulate."
It appears from the record that the petitioner company is a private limited company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner company is engaged in the food business. The petitioner company was granted a licence under Section 31 of the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006 (in short, the Act of 2006) to manufacture proprietary food. The said licence was lastly renewed for a period of five years from 18.4.2017 to 14.4.2022. Under the aforesaid licence, the petitioner company manufactures a proprietary food product widely known as "Deep Classic Cooking Medium". The said product is very popular among the consumers and is sold throughout the country. The Food Safety Officer, Agra took a sample of the said product on 13.10.2020 from the establishment of the petitioner company for testing by the Food Analyst. The sample was thereafter sent for analysis to Food Analyst, U.P. Lucknow, who, after analyzing the samples sent to him, sent a report on 02.12.2020 to the Designated Officer, Food Safety and Drug Administration, District Agra, wherein it has been noted that the condition of seal on the container and the outer covering on receipt was intact and unbroken. The said sample was found to be Mixed Fat Spread falling under Regulation 2.2.5 (3) of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011. The Food Analyst also stated that the sample was analyzed from 22.10.2020 to 01.12.2020. In the aforesaid report dated 02.12.2020 the Food Analyst opined that so far as the product in question is concerned, as per ingredient declaration the sample is of Mixed Fat Spread but name of food Article is cooking medium, which is misleading and deceptive information to the customer under regulation no.2.2.1 (3) of FSS (Packing and Laveling) Regulations, 2011. Sample does not conform to the standard of moisture, fat content, starch for Mixed Fat Spread, hence the sample is misbranded and substandard under Section 3 (1) (zf) (A) & (zx) of FSS Act, 2006. The aforesaid report of the Food Analyst was sent to the petitioner company by the Designated Officer, Food Safety and Drug Administration, District Agra on 15.2.2021. The petitioner company preferred an appeal dated 24.2.2021 under Section 46 (4) of the Act, 2006 read with Rule 2.4.6 (1) of the Regulation, 2011 against the said report before the concerned Designated Officer within the prescribed period of limitation and in the prescribed form. By the impugned order dated 14.3.2021 the Designated Officer has rejected the appeal in question on the ground that it was not in the prescribed form.
In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner company submits that Rule 2.4.6 (1) of the Regulations of 2011 provides that an appeal against the report of the Food Analyst is to be filed in Form VIII and the petitioner preferred the appeal in question in the prescribed form. The prescription, that the appeal must be in Form VIII, is nothing but a rule of procedure and is only directory in nature. In the present case, the defects in the appeal, if any, could have been rectified easily. Any deviation or departures from Form VIII could simply have been flagged and the petitioner company could have been asked to carry out the necessary rectifications. The concerned Designated Officer has, therefore, erred in law while rejecting the appeal in question on the ground that it was not in Form VIII. The impugned order dated 14.3.2021 is, therefore, unsustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and finds that the appeal in question has been preferred well within the statutory period of limitation and in the interest of justice it would be appropriate to hear the appeal in question on the merits of the case. In case there are certain infirmities in the appeal then the same may be communicated to the petitioner company within ten days from today and the same shall be rectified in further two weeks' time. Thereafter, the matter would be heard on the merit of the case.
In the facts and circumstances, the order impugned dated 14.3.2021 cannot sustain and is quashed.
The writ petition stands allowed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioners alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 19.5.2021 RKP Digitally signed by Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi Date: 2021.05.21 09:11:03 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad