Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1096 (GUJ)

Hasmukhbhai Jayantilal Kotak v. State of Gujarat

2014-11-05

J.B.PARDIWALA

body2014
ORDER : J.B. Pardiwala, J. By this Criminal Misc. Application, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- (A) Grant this application; (B) Pass an appropriate order to the concerned opponents to strictly implement the order passed by this High Court dated 4.4.2014 passed in Criminal Misc. Application (for direction) No. 3332/14 in Special Criminal Application No. 3153 of 2013 and further to be pleased to direct the concerned authorities to release the muddamal which is perishable goods as early as possible, otherwise the same is likely to be deteriorated if not released and the applicant may be put to huge financial loss of Rs.7 to 10 lacs in the interest of justice (C) Pass appropriate interim order releasing the muddamal goods of the applicant which is perishable in nature, on appropriate terms and conditions subject to final outcome of this application." It appears from the materials on record that a raid was carried out at the cold- storage where the petitioner had stored a huge stock of butter, and since the authority had doubts regarding the quality of the butter, it was seized under the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and seals were applied on the cold-storage. However, for the purpose of testing, a sample was drawn. The analysis revealed that it was a case of misbranding. It appears that the petitioner filed an application before the authority concerned for release of the stock of butter. Since the authority did not decide the application, the petitioner filed Special Criminal Application No. 3153/13. On 19.11.2013, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed the following order. "1. Mr.Himanshu Patel, learned APP, on instructions from the Adjudicating Officer, has submitted that after muddamal is seized under the provisions of Food Adulteration Act, the report is submitted to the Adjudicating Officer and matter is pending before the Adjudicating Officer, C/O The Commissioner, Food and Drugs Control Administration, Block No.8, Juna Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar. If any application is submitted by the present applicant before the Adjudicating Officer for release of muddamal, then Adjudicating Officer will decide the same in accordance with law, on its own merits and without being influenced by this order without causing any delay. 2. With the above direction and observation, this application is disposed of." 2. If any application is submitted by the present applicant before the Adjudicating Officer for release of muddamal, then Adjudicating Officer will decide the same in accordance with law, on its own merits and without being influenced by this order without causing any delay. 2. With the above direction and observation, this application is disposed of." 2. Despite such order being passed, no decision was taken by the authority concerned, and therefore, the petitioner once again filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 3332/14, praying for appropriate directions. On 4.4.2014, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed the following order:- "(1) Leave to join Resident Additional Collector, Ahmedabad as party - respondent no.5. Notice qua newly added party respondent. Mr.Poojari, learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of newly added party respondent no.5. (2) It is submitted by learned APP on instructions that Adjudicating Officer is Resident Additional Collector, Ahmedabad and the matter is pending before the said authority i.e. respondent no.5. (3) In view of above, respondent no.5 - Resident Additional Collector, Ahmedabad and Adjudicating Officer is directed to dispose of the application dated 20.12.2013 submitted by the applicant within one month from the date of receipt of present order. (4) The application is disposed of accordingly. (5) The applicant is at liberty to approach this Court in case of difficulty. Copy of this order be provided to Mr.Poojari, learned APP." 3. It appears that pursuant to such order being passed as referred to above, the authority decided the application and ordered release of the goods. However, before the order could actually be implemented and executed, a Review Application was filed by the Food Safety Officer before the authority concerned, pointing him out that the validity period of the entire stock of butter had expired and therefore, it would not be in the interest of people at large to release the goods. On such application being filed, the authority concerned reviewed its earlier order and took the decision not to release the stock of butter. 4. It appears that all these developments took place after filing of the present application. I am informed by Mr. Soni, the learned APP appearing for the State and confirmed by Mr. Patel, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the final order passed by the authority concerned has already been served upon the petitioner. 4. It appears that all these developments took place after filing of the present application. I am informed by Mr. Soni, the learned APP appearing for the State and confirmed by Mr. Patel, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the final order passed by the authority concerned has already been served upon the petitioner. In the wake of such development, it would be open now for the petitioner to challenge the final order which has been passed by the authority refusing to release the goods in question. 5. Mr. Patel has raised a grievance that having once passed the order releasing the goods, the authority could not have taken its own order in review, in absence of any such power under the provisions of the Act, 2006. However, I do not intend to go into the merit of such contention. If the petitioner deems fit to challenge the final order passed by the authority concerned, it shall be open for him to take all legal contentions available. I do not express any opinion in that regard. With the above observations, this application is disposed of. Application disposed of.