JAIDEO RAY Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by issuance of notice dated 12.02.2014 in Food Safety and Standards Act Case No. 61/2013 -14 and seeking quashing of the report No. 1567/FSSA/2013 dated 26.11.2013 of the Food Analyst in Form -B on the ground of its being without jurisdiction and void ab initio, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the writ petition. The challenge to the report dated 26.11.2013 is on the ground that the appointment of the Food Analyst is in teeth of mandatory provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. A prayer for quashing the appointment of Food Safety Officers vide notification dated 25.01.2012 has also been made in the writ petition.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, on 21.11.2013 samples of Everest Chat Masala and Vegetable Fresh Sweet Corn Kernel were taken by the Food Safety Officer, Ranchi after giving notice to the petitioner, for the purpose of analysis. The samples were analysed by the Public Analyst, Ranchi and a report dated 26.11.2013 was given holding that the sample of Vegetable Fresh Sweet Corn Kernel is misbranded in view of Section 3(1)(zf) read with Section 23 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and for non -compliance of Regulation 2.2.2.10 of the FS & S (Packaging and Labelling) Regulation, 2011. The result of the analysis of the samples taken from the petitioner was communicated to the petitioner by BSF -cum -DO -cum -ACMO -1, Ranchi vide memo dated 21.12.2013. Consequently, a complaint under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 was filed in the Court of Adjudicating Officer -cum -Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and thereafter, the proceeding being Food Safety and Standards Act Case No. 61/2013 -14 was initiated and a show -cause notice dated 12.02.2014 was issued directing the petitioner to appear on 27.03.2014. The notice dated 12.02.2014 has been challenged as illegal, arbitrary, void ab initio and without jurisdiction on the ground that neither the Food Safety Officer nor the Public Analyst nor the Designated Officer was duly appointed as required under Sections 36, 37 and 45 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the parties.