JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - This petition is directed against the orders passed by the Adjudicating Officer (Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006) as affirmed by the Joint Commissioner, Food Safety and Standards. 2. Looking to the nature of order, I propose to pass, it is not at all necessary to delve in detail the facts of the instant case. Suffice it to say that the petitioner was prosecuted under Section 52 read with section 28 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short the ''Act'') by filing a complaint before the Adjudicating Authority on the ground that the sample of butter alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner was found to be misbranded. The Adjudicating Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- on the petitioner under Sections 52 and 66 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner, F.S.S.-cum-Director Health Safety & Regulations, who not only entertained but even decided the appeal by according the following reasons:- "This is an appeal under the provisions of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 against the orders passed by the Adjudicating Officer cum Additional District Magistrate (Shimla) dated 11.01.2012. The present order will dispose of two appeals related to the same matter. The original appeal was against the adjudicating officer in summoning of the Director of Company. As per this appeal this was done despite the fact that a proper nominee had been given by the company to defend the case. Initially the present Forum did not take up the case for hearing because in the provision of FSSA Act such matters are to be referred to the Adjudicating Tribunal. But the Learned Counsel in the present case, came forward with the plea that since Adjudicating Tribunal had not been constituted for the State of Himachal Pradesh so in view of the request of the counsel which was examined in the context of notes on clauses of Section 69, the appeal could have been submitted to the Commissioner, FSSA. Keeping in view the delegation of powers done by the Commissioner, the present forum decided to entertain the appeal in absence of an Adjudicating Tribunal. It was also made clear that the decision has been announced by the respondent in official capacity hence he should not be proceeded in personal capacity i.e. by name. Keeping in view the delegation of powers done by the Commissioner, the present forum decided to entertain the appeal in absence of an Adjudicating Tribunal. It was also made clear that the decision has been announced by the respondent in official capacity hence he should not be proceeded in personal capacity i.e. by name. The petitioner again came to this Forum against the final order dated 09.07.2012 passed by the Adjudicating Officer-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Shimla as the facts in both the cases related to the same matter. Vide these orders, the Adjudicating Officer had imposed the penalty of Rs. 3.00 Lacs on the appellant company for having violated permission contained in FSSA Acts after conducting inquiry. Hence, it was decided to take up both the cases together for hearing. The record was summoned from the office of the Additional District Magistrate-cum-Adjudicating Officer and thereafter the case was called for arguments of both the parties. From the points raised in the appeal, the following points emerged for decisions:- "1. Whether action of Adjudicating Officer in and not accepting nominee summoning the Director of the company was as per law. 2. Whether quantum of punishment imposed by the Adjudicating Officer was disproportionate and unfair. 3. Whether Adjudicating Officer acted beyond jurisdiction in attending the issue after expiry of standard period of 90 days. Following conclusions emerges on the basis of pleadings of the parties & material on record: 1. From the perusal of record, it wa s found that when the case was taken up for hearing on 11.01.2012 that the form of nomination referred under rule 20.5.1 under FSSA Act was submitted by Shri S.D. Batish DGM and the authorized signatory of the company in the court of Adjudicating Officer. However, the perusal of the file also shows that food business operator had given notice as required under rule 2.4.1 (3) to one Shri Vikram Sharma, ADGM on behalf of Chanakya Dairy on 24th October, 2011. It was duty of the concerned officer of the company to apprise the Food Safety Officer about the fact of authorization by the Company on the very first day when he was given notice by the Food Safety Officer. Whereas he opted to defend his company''s action before the designated Officer Municipal Corporation, Shimla when the matter was put to him for issuing prosecution sanction as required under section 36 of FSSA. Whereas he opted to defend his company''s action before the designated Officer Municipal Corporation, Shimla when the matter was put to him for issuing prosecution sanction as required under section 36 of FSSA. In this background on the first day of hearing the action of Adjudicating Officer in summoning both the owners (Directors) of the company seems to be not against law. It was only on the second hearing that the authorized representative of the company, Shri S.D. Batish was present along with the counsel Shri Sawhney. However, even the nomination filed by the appellant does not appear to be in order because it was not addressed to the local licensing authority rather it was addressed to the authorization in question should have been submitted to the Licensing Authority, Shimla and should have been accepted by him. Accordingly, the authority submitted by the representative of the company does not appear to be in order. The authorities cited by the appellant also accordingly do not apply in the present case. In view of this the action of the Adjudicating Officer does not appear to be violative of law." 4. Now, therefore, the moot question is whether the Joint Commissioner was vested with and could have exercised the powers of appellate authority in teeth of the explanation offered by it to confer upon itself jurisdiction in consonance with Section 70 of the Act which reads thus:- "70. Establishment of Food Safety Appellate Tribunal.-(1)The Central Government or as the case may be, the State Government may, by notification, establish one or more tribunals to be known as the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals from the decisions of the Adjudicating Officer under section 68. (2) . The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, shall prescribe, the matters and areas in relation to which the Tribunal may exercise jurisdiction. (3) The Tribunal shall consist of one person only (hereinafter referred to as the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal) to be appointed, by notification, by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be: Provided that no person shall be qualified for appointment as a Presiding Officer to the Tribunal unless he is or has been a District Judge. (4) The qualifications, appointment, term of office, salary and allowances, resignation and removal of the Presiding Officer shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (5) The procedure of appeal and powers of the Tribunal shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government." 5. A perusal of the aforesaid section clearly goes to indicate that only a person who is qualified for appointment or has been a District Judge alone can be appointed as the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal as per proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 70. Thus, even on the principles of doctrine of necessity, such powers could not have been conferred upon Joint Commissioner F.S.S.-cum-Director Health Safety & Regulations, who admittedly was not a District Judge and resultantly the decision rendered by him is coram-non-judice. 6. Therefore, this Court is left with no other option but to set aside this decision. Ordered accordingly. 7. It is not in dispute that vide notification dated 20.11.2013, the State Government has appointed all the District and Sessions Judges of their respective divisions as Presiding Officers of the Appellate Tribunals by conferring upon them powers under Section 70 of the Act. 8. Since the case pertains to Shimla, let records of this case be transmitted to the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Shimla, who shall proceed to decide the appeal (Annexure P-8) in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably before 31st March, 2018 and the said Court while doing so shall be free to call for the records of proceedings of the Adjudicatory Officer. 9. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 10. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 01.01.2018. Petition disposed of.