Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

---7---

under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the FSSA") as well as by the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur. A sample of cottage cheese (Paneer) was collected from the shop of the petitioner on 10.07.2019 by the designated officer under the FSSA. As per the respondents, the said sample was found to be of sub-standard quality and therefore a criminal case was registered against the petitioner for an offence under Section 26(2)(ii) and Section 52 of the FSSA. A newspaper report was published in Dainik Bhaskar, Jabalpur edition on 14.08.2019 that the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner by the respondent No.2 - District Magistrate, Jabalpur under the provisions of the NSA. The petitioner was neither served with any notice nor was it otherwise brought to his knowledge that the proceedings against him have been initiated under the NSA. Upon learning this, the petitioner sought relevant information from the District Magistrate, Jabalpur under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which request was however rejected by him vide order dated 24.08.2019. It is submitted that the petitioner thereafter obtained another report of food analyst which shows the sample as conforming to the prescribed standard. There was absolutely no justification for invoking the provisions of NSA for the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, which is not grave enough to warrant such an extreme step. Apart from this minor offence, there is not even a single criminal case ever registered against the petitioner inasmuch as he has no criminal antecedents. The order of preventive detention under Section 3 of the NSA has been mechanically passed by the District Magistrate, Jabalpur merely on the alleged offence WP-22290-2019 & linked matters

6. Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Senior Counsel further argued that the District Magistrate before detaining the petitioner was under an obligation to inform him that he (detenu) has a right to make a representation, apart from the State Government or the Union of India or the Advisory Board, to the District Magistrate himself. Since the District Magistrate has failed to do so, the order of detention stood vitiated and is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that before the approval of the detention order by the appropriate Government, which in this case, would be the State Government, the order of detention would be liable to be set aside/revoked even by the District Magistrate himself, in his capacity as the detaining authority, keeping in view the provisions of Section 10 and 14 of the NSA. It is submitted that provisions of the NSA can be invoked only on the parameters envisaged in Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the NSA i.e. with a view to preventing any person (i) from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or (ii) from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order WP-22290-2019 & linked matters

8. Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Senior Counsel also argued that though he would not canvass such a spacious argument that even if supply of adulterated food article in a given case in bulk may be WP-22290-2019 & linked matters

---11---

hazardous to the public health, thereby adversely affecting the public order, yet under no circumstances the action can be taken under the NSA, but there was absolutely no justification whatsoever for the detaining authority to invoke the extreme provision of NSA in the present case for the reason of sample of Paneer being found to be of sub-standard quality. It is further argued that the view expressed by one of the learned Judges (Hon'ble Shri Justice Atul Sreedharan) in para 8 of the order dated 04.12.2019 passed in W.P. No.22290/2019 invoking the principle Generalia Specialibus Non-Derogant, namely, the general law shall not prevail over the provisions of the special law, would not be attracted in the facts of the present case. While the FSSA only provides for penalty for the offence made out under any of the provisions of the said Act, the NSA provides for preventive detention on the above referred to three grounds. Both the enactments operate in different spheres and have been enacted for different purposes. Therefore, neither of them can be said to be a special or general law in that sense.

13. Per-contra, Shri A.P. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State argued that the questions referred to the Larger Bench have to be considered in the light of the scheme of the NSA relating to preventive detention contained in Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Section 8 of the NSA specifically provides that the detenu shall be afforded opportunity of making a representation against the order to the appropriate Government. Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution provides for earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. Under the scheme of NSA, the detention order made by the detaining authority has to be approved by the appropriate Government within twelve days of its making. The earliest opportunity as per the provision contained in Section 10 of the NSA is provided to the detenu to make a representation before the Advisory Board or the State Government or the Central Government. The petitioner was very much informed of this right. The District Magistrate being subordinate to the State Government, having once reported the factum of detention WP-22290-2019 & linked matters