BANSHI LAL MUNDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Epitomizing a very gloomy picture of the functioning of the Medical & Health Department of the State, more particularly with reference to Barmer District, attributing total apathy and callousness on part of Food Inspectors for observance of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short, 'Act of 2006') and the Rules made thereunder, the petitioner has laid this writ petition with the under-mentioned prayers:

(2.) For carving the omnibus reliefs mentioned to supra, petitioner has averred in the writ petition that he is running a shop of sweets at Barmer in the name of Jeevan Mishthan Bhandar while faithfully adhering to the provisions of the Act of 2006. Projecting a very embellished version about the quality of sweets and other eatables prepared in his shop, the petitioner has submitted that in the entire Barmer area only one Food Safety Officer i.e. Food Inspector, respondent No.5, has been deputed by the Government for requisite checking and collecting of samples of eatables in terms of the Act of 2006 and Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner has also made an attempt to question the very appointment of the fifth respondent by alleging that he is not qualified for the said post. Concern of the petitioner is that non-observance of the regulatory provisions contained under the Act of 2006 is likely to create many problems for the residents of Barmer District including serious health problems. It is asserted by the petitioner that one Food Inspector cannot carry out regular checking and collect samples for the entire area to verify quality of food products and eatables. Attributing oblique motives to the fifth respondent, the petitioner has submitted that he is harassing him by repeatedly checking his shop and taking samples of food articles and eatables while ignoring his just obligation to check other shops of food articles and eatables. The petitioner has very specifically averred that the fifth respondent has not made any endeavor to take samples of more than fifty sweet shops and when he made endeavor to solicit requisite information from the office of Chief Medical & Health Officer, Barmer by resorting to RTI, information was not divulged to him. With all these allegations, the petitioner has submitted that even his genuine grievances have not been appreciated by the appellate authority under the RTI Act and his crusade against the problem of health hazards in Barmer District is not yielding the desired results. For redressal of grievances, according to the petitioner, he has served a notice for demand of justice attributing many insinuations against the respondents including arbitrary and illegal action on their part but the same has not been responded.

(3.) Learned counsel Mr. Sharma has submitted that the Act of 2006 imposes responsibility on the food business operators to ensure that food processed, manufactured, imported, or distributed is in conformity with the domestic food laws and therefore its implementation is to be carried out by the respondents with utmost expediency to prevent health hazards and many other problems of malnutrition.