Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6.3 He further submitted that QCC team had drawn samples, without issuing notice and opportunity to the petitioners and without conducting on-the-spot analysis and even without complaint from any individual. The respondents have not followed the mandatory procedure as completed under SOP. On 05.08.2024, the petitioners requested the respondent No.2 to re-examine the samples. However, the same was not considered the same.

6.4 He also submitted that the petitioners urged that the procedure for fortified rice samples was not followed correctly, as the initial analysis was not conducted within the prescribed time. The checking process should have been completed within 24 hours and any rejection should have been conveyed within one week of dumping, especially when the respondents have conducted surprise checks in the absence of any complaints or grievances is not permissible under law.

6.7 He further submitted that the appeal procedure for Fortified Rice, as per Government of India's 2023 guidelines, mandates drawing three sealed samples at the time of stock acceptance in the presence of officials and any stocks later identified as BRL must be replaced by the rice millers. He further submitted that respondent No.2 in its letter, vide RO TL-27.0038.0/1/2023-PROC-RO TL (E 97949) dated 01.10.2024, clearly stated that there is no provision of reconsideration and opportunity for representation/joint analysis of rice samples in the presence of all stakeholders, as per the instructions/guidelines issued by the Ministry.

9. Mr. Dominic Fernandes submitted that the manufacture of FRK and fortified rice requires a blending ratio test within the limit of 1:100, as per the procedure outlined in the SOP. Clause 2.1 states that FRK manufacturers must have an FSSAI license/registration and the blending ratio should range from 0.9 to 1.2. There are stages of quality management protocols of FRK and fortified rice, which are Stage 1 : As per the quality management protocols for FRK and fortified rice dated 26.12.2023, the vitamins and minerals premix (VMP) used must comply with FSSAI guidelines, and manufacturers must obtain a Certificate of Analysis (COA) from FSSAI-approved laboratories, which should include a QR code for verification. Manufacturers must maintain batch-wise records of the COA and premix used for audit trails accessible to authorities. In Stage 2, rice (2018) 4 SCC 743 millers blending FRK with conventional rice must procure FRK from FSSAI-licensed suppliers, use a blending machine as per BIS standards, and ensure homogenous blending at 1% by weight. Quality checks should be performed through hourly blending efficiency tests, and records must be maintained. Periodic and surprise checks by DFPD are mandated, as mentioned in the letter dated 11.06.2024, which also requires periodic checks of PDS quality. These guidelines, formulated by the Department of Food and Public Distribution on 13.12.2022, are to be strictly adhered to by all stakeholders to ensure high-quality fortified rice for beneficiaries, with immediate effect. 9.1 He further submitted that the appeal mechanism is only applicable at the stage of accepting CMR and not for subsequent inspections. As per the order of respondent No.2, dated 15.03.2023, the appeal procedure for fortified rice samples found BRL as the prescribed norms issued by the DFPD, Government of India, and FSSAI, is final and it cannot be challenged by any agency or stakeholder. Actions against delinquents will be based on the ministry's report. The existing appeal procedure for rejection of rice stocks during the acceptance of CMR will continue to apply only to physical analysis parameters as specified by the Government of India. Therefore, no remedy of appeal is not provided or allowed at the subsequent inspection stages. He further submitted that the rice identified as BRL must be immediately replaced. However, out of 56 samples, 14 samples were found exceeding the uniform specification limit of rice and declared as BRL. The respondent authorities are directed that the stocks that are declared as BRL may be replaced as per the procedure and they have not rejected the stocks, which were declared as BRL. If the fresh stocks were supplied in place of BRL, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners.

14. The grievance of the petitioners is that as per SOP dated 15.03.2023, the respondent authorities shall conduct physical analysis of the parameters by drawing samples from the stocks, which were delivered by the petitioners. However, the respondents without conducting such test and after accepting the deliveries, conducted surprise inspection and rejected the deliveries of the petitioners. On 11.06.2024, respondent No.1 addressed a letter to respondent No.2 Corporation, wherein it is stated that as per the procedure, the team from the Ministry was deputed to inspect the food storage depots under respondent No.2 in the month of April, 2024. During the course of inspection, three depots were inspected and in total 56 numbers of rice samples were collected. Thereafter, they conducted analysis test and basing on the detailed analysis report, it is found that out of total 56 samples of rice, 14 samples were found exceeding the uniform specification limit of rice and declared as BRL. On 12.07.2024, respondent No.1 found in other Depots that out of 75 samples, 17 were found exceeding the uniform specification limit and were declared as BRL. They further stated that the stocks that were declared as BRL may be replaced at the earliest, as per the procedure.