Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 252 (UTT)

Girdhari Lal Chandhok v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-06-14

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : 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 5811/16) moved for the purpose. 2. Heard on the merits of the appeal. 3. It transpires that on 8.10.2011 at 10:30 A.M., the Food Inspector collected the sample of Dry Mango Powder from the shop of the appellant located in town Uttarkashi. That sample was kept in the shop even after the expiration period of ‘best before date’. Accordingly, the appellant was challaned and on 7.5.2012, the Adjudicating Officer, in view of Section 68 of the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) imposed the penalty of rupees fifty thousand on the appellant. Appellant received the copy of order on the same day and preferred the appeal on 08.06.2012 before the Principal Secretary, Medical, Health & Family Welfare, notwithstanding the fact that such Secretary was not the proper forum to prefer the appeal and it ought to have been filed before the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal. Since, no such Tribunal had been constituted by the Government, hence Mr. Chandhok was facing constraints in filing the appeal and such Tribunal could be established by the State Government only by issuing a Notification on 20.06.2015. But in the meanwhile, Mr. Chandhok was reprieved by the office memorandum dated 26.9.2012 issued by the Principal Secretary, mandating that no coercive measures shall be taken for recovery of penalty from the appellant until and unless the Appellate Tribunal is duly constituted by the Government. 4. When such Tribunal was constituted u/s 70(1) of the Act, Mr. Chandhok preferred the appeal on 20.7.2015 but the Presiding Officer of such Tribunal, vide the judgment and order, under challenge, has refused to admit the appeal on the ground that it was filed beyond the limitation of time, as envisaged u/s 71(5) of the Act. 5. Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, as have been disclosed here-in-above, the Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal ought not to have refused to entertain the appeal preferred by the appellant for hearing on this sole ground. So, 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. So, 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. Chandhok 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 5030/16) is also disposed of in the above terms.