Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Karkalathota Thimappa Ramakka vs Union Of India on 17 November, 2017

                          1




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 DHARWAD BENCH


     DATED THIS THE 17 T H DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017


                       BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL


         W.P.NOS.110965-968/2017 (GM RES)


BETWEEN:

1.    KARKALATHOTA THIMAPPA RAMAKKA
      CHARITABLE TRUST,
      BY ITS SECRETARY,
      K. GOPAL S/O GOVINDAPPA,
      AGE: 43 YEARS,
      OCC: BUSIENSS,
      R/O: WARD NO.31,
      VATHRI ROAD, VIDYA NAGAR,
      6TH CROSS, DOOR NO.12,
      BALLARI-583101.

2.    SHRI.MARUBADU MALLIKARJUN EDUCATION
      AND CHARITABLE TRUST,
      BY ITS PRESIDENT,
      M.MANJUNATH
      S/O M. MALLIKARJUN,
      AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT,
      R/O: KAPPAGAL ROAD,
      M.V. NAGAR, 3RD CROSS,
      BALLARI-583103.
                              2




3.    S G R CHARITABLE TRUST,
      BY ITS PRESIDENT,
      MAHESH S/O RAJEEV
      AGE: 33 YEARS,
      OCC: PRESIDENT,
      R/O: KAPPAGAL ROAD,
      4TH CROSS, RIGHT SIDE,
      BALLARI-583101.

4.    A SURENDRA
      S/O A CHANNAPPA @ CHANNAIAH,
      SUDDA KUDINEERU GHATAK,
      HOSAPETE ROAD,
      30TH WARD,
      BALLARI-583103.
                                          ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.PRASHANT S.KADADEVAR, ADV.)


AND

1.    UNION OF INDIA
      REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
      DEPT. OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE,
      NEW DELHI.
      (DELETED V.C.O.DATED 17/11/2017)

2.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
      REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
      DEPT. OF FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES,
      M.S. BUILDING,
      VIDHANA VEEDHI,
      BENGLAURU-560001.


3.    THE COMMISSIONER
                             3




     FOOD SAFETY & STANDARDS,
     HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE SERVICE,
     BENGALURU.

4.   DESIGNATED OFFICER/
     FOOD SAFETY OFFICER,
     FOOD SAFETY & STANDARDS
     HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE SERVICE,
     BALLARI.
                                        ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.RAVI V.HOSAMANI, AGA)

     THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) QUASH
THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO.DO/FSSA/BLY/88/2017-
18 DATED:04.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR
AS PETITIONER NO.1 IS CONCERNED.

ii)  QUASH    THE    IMPUGNED    ORDER    OF   SEIZER
DATED:30.10.2017 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 PERTAINING TO
TH PETITIONER NO2. AND 3 AND IMPUGNED ORDER OF SEIZER
DATED:25.10.2017 PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER NO.4
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G, G1 AND G2 RESPECTIVELY TO
THE WRIT PETITION.

iii) DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO CONSIDER REPLY OF
THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 AT ANNEXURE-F AND F1 TO THE
WRIT PETITION.


    THESE   WRI T PETI TIONS COMING   ON  FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
                                   4




                               ORDER

Heard.

2. The petitioners claim that they have established community based water serving units at various places mentioned in Annexures-E, E1, E2 and G2 in Bellary city. Respondent No.4, the Designated Officer/Food Safety Officer issued notice Annexures-E, E1 and E2 to petitioner Nos.1 to 3 contending that they are running the water service units mentioned in the notice for public consumption without the certificates required under Regulations 2.3.14(17)(18) of the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales), Regulations, 2011, and they have to show cause as to why they should not be seized.

3. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 submitted their objections F and F1 to the said show cause notice 5 contending that they are serving only unpackaged drinking water on charity basis, therefore, they do not require such certification. The petitioners contend that the Assistant Director of Food Safety and Standard Authority of India (Enforcement Division) has issued clarification Annexure-B dated 13/7/2015 to the effect that for the unpackaged drinking water, the Food Safety Standards Certificate (FSS) is not required. They contend that without disposing the replies of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and without serving any notice on petitioner No.4, the Food Safety Officer has seized the water safety units of petitioner Nos.2 to 4. Thus, the petitioners seek mandamus to the respondent No.2 for consideration of their objections in the matter.

4. The Designated Officer having issued notice to petitioner Nos.1 to 3 should hear them and pass 6 orders on their replies. Annexures-G, G1, G2 do not even bear the signatures of any witnesses or the petitioners to show that the seizer was conducted in their presence.

5. The petitioners shall file application before the Food Safety officer regarding their objections for the seizer. The Designated Officer and the Food Safety Officer shall hear the petitioners in the matter and pass orders in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

6. Petitions are disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE Vmb