Delhi District Court
Mr. Nikhil Asrani vs State Through Fso on 20 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. PITAMBER DUTT :
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER,
FOOD SAFETY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI.
FSAT NO. 14/2022
CNR No. DLND01-006733-2022
1. Sh. Nikhil Asrani
S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar & Co. (Impex) Pvt. Ltd.
A-17, Sonu Tower, IInd Floor,
Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Commercial Complex,
Delhi - 110009
R/o B-3/303, 19 Rajpur Road,
Civil Lines, Delhi - 110054.
2. M/s Suresh Kumar & Co. (Impex) Pvt. Ltd.
A-17, Sonu Tower, IInd Floor,
Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Commercial Complex,
Delhi - 110009
Alternate Address
M/s Suresh Kumar & Co. (Impex) Pvt. Ltd.
Khasra No. 1092, First Floor,
Pole No. 215,
Bhalswa Village, Delhi - 110033.
3. Sh. Baldev Raj
S/o Late Sh. Chaman Lal
M/s Indeer Stores
INA Market, New Delhi
R/o B-55, B.K. Dutt Colony,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003. .........Appellants
Versus
State Through FSO
Food Safety Officer, Dept. of Food Safety,
Government of NCT of Delhi Pitamber Digitally signed by
Pitamber Dutt
Dutt Date: 2026.04.20
16:27:14 +0530
FSAT no. 14/2022
Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT) Page no. 1 of 11
8th Floor, Bhawan, Connaught Place,
New Delhi - 1
2. Sh. Bal Mukund
Food Safety Officer,
Department of Food Safety
Government of NCT of Delhi,
8th Floor, Mayur Bhawan,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi - 110001. ............Respondent
Date of Institution : 08.08.2022
Arguments heard on : 06.04.2026
Date of Judgment : 20.04.2026
Appearances:-
Sh. Kapil Sharma, Sh. A.K. Shrivastav and Sh. Jishnu Bakshi, Ld. Counsels for
the appellants.
Sh. Birender Singh Dagar, Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for the State / FSO.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the appeal filed by the appellants against impugned order dated 29.06.2022, passed by the Adjudication Officer / ADM (South-East), Delhi under Rule 3.1.1.(3) of the Food Safety & Standards Rules, 2011. The brief facts necessitated in filing of the present appeal are given as under:-
2. The appellants have averred that on 18.05.2017, Sh. Bal Mukund, Food Safety Officer (FSO), took sample of "Ragu Cheesy Classic Alfredo" from M/s Inder Store, Shop No. 40, INA Market, New Delhi - 110023, for analysis under the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006 and after analysis, declared the said sample to be sub-standard as acetic acid Pitamber Digitally signed by Pitamber Dutt Dutt Date: 2026.04.20 16:27:23 +0530 FSAT no. 14/2022 Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT) Page no. 2 of 11 was less than the prescribed limit of 1.0% and also reported the same to be misbranded for violation of Regulation no. 2.2.1.4 and 2.3.2 (a) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labeling) Regulation 2011, by the Food Analyst, Government Food Laboratory, Delhi, vide Food Analyst Report no. FSS/549/2017 dated 02.06.2017. Consequently, a complaint was filed by the FSO against the appellant and others, before the Ld. Adjudicating Officer, ADM (South-East), Delhi and after considering the reply and rejoinder as well as the submissions made by both the parties, the A.O. / ADM, vide impugned order dated 29.06.2022, imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- on appellants no. 3 and penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- each on appellants no. 1 and 2. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.06.2022, the present appeal has been filed for adjudication.
3. Notice of the appeal was sent to the Food Safety Officer, record of the Adjudicating Officer was also called for.
4. Sh. A.K. Shrivastav, Ld. Counsel for the appellants has contended that the impugned order has been passed by the A.O. / ADM in a mechanical manner, without appreciating and distinguishing the submissions / objections and the documents so relied by the appellants in their reply / objections. He further contended that the sample of "Ragu Cheesy Classic Alfredo" was not at all sub-standard as same is a proprietary food, of which standards are not prescribed under the provisions of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives Regulations, 2011) but are prescribed under item no. 2.12 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standard and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011. He further contended that Food Analyst analyzed the impugned sample of Ragu Cheesy Classic Alfredo Sauce as Digitally signed Pitamber by Pitamber Dutt Dutt Date: 2026.04.20 16:27:29 +0530 FSAT no. 14/2022 Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT) Page no. 3 of 11 per specifications of culinary paste / fruit and vegetable sauce as prescribed under item no. 2.3.28 of the regulations and opined the same to be sub-standard, though same should have been analyzed as per standards of proprietary food. He further contended that the impugned sample of Ragu Cheesy Classic Alfredo Sauce was not in violation of of regulation 2.3.2(a) of the Packaging and Labelling Regulations, 2011 as same was bearing all mandatory pre-printed information on the principal display panel. He further contended that the respondent / FSO has failed to bring on record any document to show that the Food Analyst Laboratory, Delhi was recognized by the Food Authority and accredited by NABL at the relevant time. He further contended that merely because of minor labeling defects on the impugned sample commodity, the appellants could not have gained or would have caused loss to the consumers. He prayed that appeal may be allowed and impugned order dated 29.06.2022 may be set aside.
5. Sh. Birender Singh Dagar, Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for the State / FSO has contended that the impugned order has been passed by the FSO after considering the reply filed by the appellants and material available on record, as per law. He further contended that the sample taken was opined to be of 'Sub-Standard' and 'Misbranded' by the Food Analyst vide his report no. FSS/549/2017 dated 02.06.2017. He further contended that copy of Food Analyst Report was sent to FBO but none appeared before the Designated Officer, South-East District, to file an appeal against the report of the Food Analyst. He prayed that appeal may be dismissed.
6. I have heard Ld. counsel for the appellants, Ld. counsel for the respondents, perused the appeal, impugned order as well as record. A Pitamber Digitally signed by Pitamber Dutt Dutt Date: 2026.04.20 FSAT no. 14/2022 16:27:38 +0530 Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT) Page no. 4 of 11 perusal of the above shows that Food Safety Officer conducted a raid on 18.05.2017 and sample of Ragu Cheesy Classic Alfredo Sauce was taken, which was found 'Sub-Standard' and 'Misbranded' after examination, therefore, a complaint was submitted by the FSO against the appellant for violation of provisions of Section 23 (1), Section 26 (1) (ii) & 26 (2) (ii), Section 27 (1) and Section 27 (2) (c) Read with Section 3 (1) (zf) & 3 (1) (zx) (c) (i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and violated Regulation no. 2.2.1.4, 2.3.2 (a) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging & Labeling) Regulations, 2011, punishable under Section 51 and 52 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
7. Pursuant to the said complaint, notice was sent to the appellants, who submitted their detailed reply.
8. Pursuant to the said complaint, notice was sent to the appellants, who submitted their detailed reply.
9. The Adjudicating Officer thereafter, passed the impugned order dated 29.06.2022, holding the appellants guilty for commission of offences and imposed penalty of fine as mentioned in para 3 (i) to (iv) of the order.
10. The appellants have claimed that impugned order dated 29.06.2022 has been passed without considering the various grounds taken by them in their reply to complaint of Food Safety Officer.
11. A perusal of record shows that appellants challenged the complaint filed by Food Safety Officer on various grounds, which they have taken in their reply. As per the appellants, the sample of "Ragu Cheesy Classic Pitamber Digitally signed by Pitamber Dutt FSAT no. 14/2022 Dutt Date: 2026.04.20 16:27:45 +0530 Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT) Page no. 5 of 11 Alfredo" was not at all sub-standard as same is a proprietary food, of which standards are not prescribed under the provisions of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives Regulations, 2011) but are prescribed under item no. 2.12 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standard and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011. They further claimed that Food Analyst analyzed the impugned sample of Ragu Cheesy Classic Alfredo Sauce as per specifications of culinary paste / fruit and vegetable sauce as prescribed under item no. 2.3.28 of the regulations and opined the same to be sub-standard, though same should have been analyzed as per standards of proprietary food. They further claimed that impugned sample of Ragu Cheesy Classic Alfredo Sauce was bearing all mandatory pre-printed information on the principal display panel, as per regulation 2.3.2(a) of the Packaging and Labelling Regulations, 2011. They also claimed that the respondent / FSO has failed to bring on record any document to show that the Food Analyst Laboratory, Delhi was recognized by the Food Authority and accredited by NABL at the relevant time.
12. The appellants had thus taken various pleas against the maintainability of the complaint, which goes to the root of the matter. However, surprisingly the Adjudicating Officer has not dealt with any of such pleas raised by the appellants in their reply and has passed the impugned order without assigning any reason as to why and on what basis, he discarded the plea taken by the appellants in their reply.
13. The right to be heard is one of the fundamental principles of natural justice, which is to be followed by all the Administrative Authorities and Quasi Judicial Authorities. The basic fundamental principle of natural justice is that the person against whom an order is Digitally signed Pitamber by Pitamber Dutt Dutt Date: 2026.04.20 16:27:53 +0530 FSAT no. 14/2022 Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT) Page no. 6 of 11 passed must know as to why and on what basis the said order has been passed.
14. The order must be a speaking one, giving reasons for reaching to the conclusion and must not be cryptic in nature.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "M/s Kranti Asso. Pvt.
Ltd. & Anr. Vs Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors.", Civil Appeal, arising out of SLP (Civil) no. 20428 of 2007, date of decision 08.09.2010, after analyzing various judgments on necessity of giving reason by a body or Authority in support of his judgment, summarized various pleas and observed in para 51, as under:-
51. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:
a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.
c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.
d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.Digitally signed
Pitamber by Pitamber Dutt Dutt Date: 2026.04.20 16:28:01 +0530 FSAT no. 14/2022 Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT) Page no. 7 of 11 e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.
h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
i. Judicial or even quasi- judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.Digitally signed
Pitamber by Pitamber Dutt Dutt Date: 2026.04.20 16:28:07 +0530 FSAT no. 14/2022 Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT) Page no. 8 of 11 k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process.
m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).
n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".Digitally signed
Pitamber by Pitamber Dutt Dutt Date: 2026.04.20 16:28:14 +0530 FSAT no. 14/2022 Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT) Page no. 9 of 11 o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process".
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case titled Jaspal Singh Jolly Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi, reported as 125 (2005) DLT 592, has held that:-
"Noting the decision of the Supreme Court as Erusia Equipments & Chemical Ltd. Vs State of West Bengal, (1975) 1 SCC 70: AIR 1975 SC 266 (at P. 269); 106 (2003) DLT 573, Mekaster Trading Corporation Vs Union of India;
and (1990) 4 SCC 594, S.N. Mukherjee Vs Union of India, I had held that the aforesaid decision established the legal proposition that orders which are subject to judicial review must be in compliance with the principle of natural justice, namely (a) proper hearing, (b) decision by an unbiased mind;
(c) taking into consideration all the relevant factors and excluding the irrelevant factors; and (d) reasons to be recorded.
Needless to state, reasons enable the superior Court to effectively exercise supervisory jurisdiction.
Additionally, when reasons are stated, the persons affected knows the mind against him. A decision may be right, but not sound. Such a decision leaves a grievance in the mind of the person affected that he was not Digitally signed Pitamber by Pitamber Dutt Dutt Date: 2026.04.20 16:28:22 +0530 FSAT no. 14/2022 Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT) Page no. 10 of 11 told why the decision was taken."
17. The adjudicating officer while passing the order was thus required to assign reason that on what basis, he discarded the pleas taken by the appellant. However, the adjudicating officer has failed to assign any reason for discarding the plea taken by the appellant in their reply and has passed the impugned order without giving any reason, therefore, said order is not sustainable in law.
18. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the appeal filed by the appellants against the impugned order dated 29.06.2022, passed by the Adjudicating Officer / ADM (South-East), is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.06.2022 is set aside. Matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Officer / ADM (South-East) with the directions to hear the parties afresh and pass a reasoned order after dealing with all the pleas taken by the appellants in their reply and supplementary reply.
19. The record of the respondent be send back along with copy of this order. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open Court Pitamber by Pitamber Dutt Today i.e. on 20.04.2026 Dutt Date: 2026.04.20 16:28:28 +0530 (PITAMBER DUTT) Principal District & Sessions Judge, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts New Delhi.
FSAT no. 14/2022Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT) Page no. 11 of 11