JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Having heard the learned Counsel of either party, this Court condones the delay of 21 days in filing this appeal and thus, allow the application (CLMA 5813/16) moved for the purpose. 2. Heard on the merits of the appeal. 3. It transpires that the appellant Uttam Singh Kumain runs a Sweets Shop in town Uttarkashi and a sample of a particular sweet, popularly known as ‘Rasgulla’, was collected by the Food Inspector on 18.7.2013 from the said shop. On being tested in the concerned Laboratory, since such product ‘Rasgulla’ was found having starch element, hence it was declared to be sub-standard one. Accordingly, the appellant was challaned and the Adjudicating Officer on 9.4.2013 imposed a penalty of rupees eighty thousand on him. Since, at that time, no Appellate Tribunal was in existence, as envisaged under the concerned Act, so the appellant knocked the door of Food Safety Commissioner, Uttarakhand at Dehradun but he could not find any favour from the said Authority because the jurisdiction vested only with the Tribunal. Then he wrote a letter to the Secretary, Health & Family Welfare, seeking respite that till the Tribunal is constituted, recovery of penalty amount may be kept stayed but still, he could not get any relief. However, such penalty could not be recovered and meanwhile, the Tribunal was constituted vide the Notification issued by the Government on 20.6.2015 and subsequently thereafter, Mr. Kumain preferred the appeal on 20.7.2015. But unfortunately, the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has refused to entertain the appeal on the ground that it was barred by the time limitation. 4. In my opinion, with the given facts and circumstances, the blame could not have been attached to Mr. Kumain for preferring this appeal with delay because during the vacuum, he kept on running from the pillar to post for preferring it but there was certainly a constraint for him in finding an appropriate forum, as contemplated under the Act, for preferring the appeal. 5. With the result, I set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 27.2.2016 passed by the Tribunal concerned and condone the delay on the part of Mr. Kumain in preferring the appeal before the Court below, with a further direction, to it to hear and decide the appeal on its own merits. 6. This appeal stands allowed accordingly. 7. 5. With the result, I set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 27.2.2016 passed by the Tribunal concerned and condone the delay on the part of Mr. Kumain in preferring the appeal before the Court below, with a further direction, to it to hear and decide the appeal on its own merits. 6. This appeal stands allowed accordingly. 7. Stay application (CLMA 5033/16) is also disposed of in the above terms.