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 3, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Sarang Sanjay Pipada vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 5 October, 2020

Author: Shrikant D. Kulkarni

Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant D. Kulkarni

                                         1
                                                                   W.P.4255-2020

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 4255 OF 2020

Sarang s/o Sanjay Pipada                                    .. Petitioner

        Versus

The State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
Food & Drugs, Mantralaya
Mumbai and ors.                                             .. Respondents

Mr R.R. Mantri, Advocate h/f Mr R.R. Sancheti, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs V.S. Choudhari, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 to 3


                                   CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND
                                          SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

DATE : 5th October 2020 PER COURT :

1. The petitioner assails the order dated 11.3.2020 suspending the licence of the petitioner until further orders.
2. The petitioner claims to possess food licence under the provisions of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The licence of the petitioner is suspended on the count that the petitioner has sold whey powder to one Hiraman Shinde. The said Hiraman Shinde deals in business of milk collection and sale center. The petitioner did not give the details of the sale and purchase made by him. On the premise that the petitioner may have sold whey powder to different milk collection centers and that the petitioner failed to submit the entire record, the licence of the petitioner is suspended referring to the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing & Registration of Food Business) Regulation, 2011.
3. It is the contention of Mr Mantri, learned Advocate that only the designated Officer can suspend the licence. The Assistant Commissioner ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2020 02:54:37 ::: 2 W.P.4255-2020 (Food) does not have authority to suspend the licence of the petitioner. The licence is suspended by a person without authority and as such, is null and void. The learned Advocate further submits that the reference to the Regulations, more particularly 2.1.8 (4) is also erroneous. The said regulation is not attracted. The said regulation is applicable to the licence dealing in petty food items. The learned Advocate submits that it is only in emergent case the licence can be suspended without notice. In the present case, the licence has been suspended without notice. The respondents have also submitted that Hiraman Shinde has the licence. The petitioner was not issued with any letter showing the period for which the petitioner was required to submit the documents. The petitioner has also given a letter to that effect and as the premises of the petitioner is in contentment zone, the petitioner could not have opened the premise.
4. The learned A.G.P. submits that under the notification dated 1.8.2011, the Commissioner of Food Safety, Food and Drugs Administration, Maharashtra State, Mumbai has appointed all Assistant Commissioners (Food) and all Supervisors (Food) working under the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in Food Drugs Administration (M.S.) as Designated Officers for the area of all local area of revenue districts of Maharashtra State w.e.f. 5.8.2011. The learned A.G.P. submits that the petitioner is not co-

operating and was not submitting the record of the sale and purchase of whey powder. Whey powder is used in adulteration of pure milk. The learned A.G.P. further submits that it is in public interest and to safeguard public health, action has been taken against the petitioner.

5. We have considered the submissions.

6. The petition was filed during lock-down on the premise that the appellate authority is not available to hear the appeal. ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2020 02:54:37 ::: 3

W.P.4255-2020

7. The petitioner has contended that the Assistant Commissioner, who has issued the order of suspension does not have the authority and cannot be Designated Officer under Section 36 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The notification is produced on record by the learned A.G.P. to submit that the Commissioner, Food and Safety, Maharashtra State has designated all the Assistant Commissioners (Food) and all Supervisors (Food) working under the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as Designated Officers.

8. Whether the Designated Officers are not below the rank of Sub- Divisional Officer is a matter of enquiry. We would not be entering into the arena of the said dispute. Since 2011, these persons are Designated Officers designated by the Commissioner under Section 36 of the Act.

9. It would appear that the licence of the petitioner has been suspended without notice. One of the reasons mentioned is that the petitioner has not submitted the bills and the record.

10. We may observe that it is also the duty of the petitioner to co-operate with the authority in their enquiry and to produce the relevant record. The petitioner cannot on one hand refuse to co-operate in the enquiry and on the other hand assail the same.

11. It is submitted that the respondent has initiated further action for cancellation of licence. We need not dilate on the merits of that action. It is for the authority to proceed in accordance with law.

12. The licence of the petitioner is suspended since 11.3.2020. The whey powder has the expiry date. In that way, it is perishable item. ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2020 02:54:37 ::: 4

W.P.4255-2020

13. For almost seven months, the licence of the petitioner is under suspension. It has come on record that Hiraman Shinde possess the licence to run the milk center.

14. The respondent should have given specific reason for suspending the licence without notice.

15. In view of all the aforesaid facts, we set aside the impugned order of suspension of the petitioner's licence. It is made clear that this order would not be an impediment for the authority to proceed in accordance with law and to take action under the provisions of Statute, Rules and Regulations. It is also expected that the petitioner co-operates and submits the legitimate record, as demanded by the authority.

16. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) vvr ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2020 02:54:37 :::