ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.08.2015 passed learned Adjudicating Officer-cum-Additional Collector, Madhepura in Adjudication Case No. 02/2015 as contained in Annexure-1 to the present writ application. It appears that vide Annexure-1, the petitioner has been held guilty for using nonpermitted colour in preparation of sweets and thereby not complying with the standards provided under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2006') and after finding the petitioner's guilty, the Ad judicating Officer has imposed a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac) in terms of the provisions of Section 59 of the Act of 2006 and the petitioner has been directed to deposit the fine amount through the Challan in Government treasury within the prescribed period of 15 days. The petitioner also wants a Declaration that the impugned order has not been passed in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2006 and the Rules framed therein.

(2.) Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that on perusal of Annexure-2 to the present writ application it will appear that the seizure of Laddu Dana is said to have been made in presence of one Rajesh Kumar who has received the seizure list and in whose presence four packets were prepared and sealed by the Food Safety Officer. It is the submission of learned counsel that said Rajesh Kumar is not known to the petitioner and in fact the Laddu Dana which was seized from the shop of the petitioner was not sent to the laboratory at Kolkata. It is submitted that from Annexure-3 to the writ application which is in form of a notice it would appear that the Laddu Dana was prepared with the ingredients of Besan+Tumeric+Soyabin+Refined which are all permissible additives and therefore, it can not be said that the Laddu Dana was containing any unsafe ingredients.

(3.) Learned counsel further submits that laboratory report nowhere indicates that how the sample of Laddu Dana was non-confirming and if the non-permitted were used in preparation thereof than what was the nature of these materials. Learned counsel submits that the Adjudicating Officer has not specified as to which provision of the Act, Rule or Regulation has been violated. It is submitted that he has not followed the provision of Section 49 of the Act of 2006 while imposing penalty. According to the petitioner the Adjudicating Authority has acted in violation of Rule 3.1.1 (6) and Rule 3.1.1 (7) of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011.