Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 255 (UTT)

ITC LIMITED v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-05-20

ALOK SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 20.12.2014, passed by the Designated Officer according sanction to initiate the proceedings under Sections 52 and 53 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 08.01.2015, passed by Adjudicating Officer/Additional District Magistrate, Hardwar whereby petitioner was summoned for 21.01.2015. 2. Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, on the instruction of Ms. Raashi Beri, Advocate for the petitioner, submits that in compliance of the summoning order, annexure No. 12 to the writ petition, petitioner has put in appearance before the Adjudicating Officer. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that before sending the report to the Designated Officer to accord sanction, Food Analyst report was not obtained as required under Section 42 of the Act. He further contends that Designated Officer has not accorded sanction by recording his satisfaction As to whether contents of complaint, inspection report, notices issued to the petitioner prima facie amounts to “mis-branding” and “mis-leading advertisement” in the light of explanation furnished by the petitioner. In other words, Designated Officer has failed to take into consideration the report furnished to him alongwith the reply furnished by the petitioner. 4. Under Sections 52 and 53 of the Act, if a person is found guilty for “mis-branding” or “misleading advertisement”, penalty may be imposed against such guilty person to the tune which may extend to three lacs and ten lacs respectively. Sections 52 and 53 of the Act do not prescribe any conviction or sentence of jail term. 5. Moreover, since this is a case of mis-branding and misleading advertisement and it is not a case of sub-standard of food or adulteration in the food, therefore, report of Food Analyst is not required as argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 6. Since petitioner has put in appearance before the Adjudicating Officer, therefore, As to whether information printed by the petitioner on the level amounts to “mis-branding” or “mis-leading advertisement”, can be adjudicated upon by the Adjudicating Officer. Therefore, at this stage, I am not inclined to enter into the controversy to find out as to whether allegation would demonstrate “mis-branding” and “mis-leading advertisement”. 7. There seems to be no jurisdictional error in annexure No. 10 and 12 to the writ petition. Therefore, at this stage, I am not inclined to enter into the controversy to find out as to whether allegation would demonstrate “mis-branding” and “mis-leading advertisement”. 7. There seems to be no jurisdictional error in annexure No. 10 and 12 to the writ petition. Writ can be entertained when Writ Court is prima facie satisfied about the jurisdictional error in the impugned orders. Since I do not find any jurisdictional error therein, therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 8. Writ petition is dismissed.