Bombay High Court: The appellants filed the present appeal under Section 71(6) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (‘the Act’) being aggrieved by the order dated 13-10-2016 passed by the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal, Buldhana (‘Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal dismissed a previous appeal and upheld the order passed by the Adjudicating Officer and Joint Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Amravati. Anil L. Pansare, J., quashed and set aside the orders of the Adjudicating Officer and the Tribunal and held that a penalty of Rs 2,00,000 cannot be imposed on appellants for manufacturing and selling substandard Iodized Salt as the report of Referral Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad (‘RFL’) suffered from non-compliance of mandatory time limit for sample analysis.
Background
The Adjudicating Officer found that the appellants had contravened the provisions of Section 26(2)(ii) and 27(1) of the Act by manufacturing and selling substandard Iodized Salt TATA to the respondent and thus under Section 51 of the Act, imposed a penalty of Rs 2,00,000 on each appellant. The Food Safety Officer drew four samples of the Iodized Salt manufactured by Tata (“Tata Salt”) and sent one of the samples to Food Analyst, District Health Laboratory, Amravati (‘DHL’) for test and analysis. The DHL analyzed the sample and issued a report stating that the sample is misbranded as Iodized Salt. The Adjudicating Officer accordingly imposed a penalty of Rs 2,00,000 on each appellant.
This report was challenged by filing an appeal before the Designated Officer, Buldhana who sent the rest of the samples of Tata Salt to the RFL. The RFL generated a report after a month stating therein that the samples of Tata Salt lacked the minimum prescribed Sodium Chloride contents, and thus, they were substandard in terms of Section 3(1)(zx) of the Act. RFL did not comment on labeling thus, it was presumed by the Adjudicating Officer that the sample was not misbranded.
Observations and Analysis
The Court observed that the RFL, as per Rule 2.4.6(3) of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 (‘2011 Rules’) had to issue the certificate of analysis within fourteen days of receiving the sample as per law and if a delay occurred, the Director, RFL was duty-bound to inform the Designated Officer and the Commissioner of Food Safety for the reasons thereof but no such procedure had been followed and the Director had not informed the authorities.
The Court noted that the analysis commenced on 12-6-2012 and concluded on 13-7-2012, but still the Director, did not assign any reason as to why did it require more than thirty days to complete the analysis when the 2011 Rules mandated completion of analysis within fourteen days. The Court agreed with the submission of Counsel for appellants that the delay in completing the analysis may have resulted in samples getting deteriorated because of exposure to heat, light, moisture, etc which may have resulted in deteriorating its standard and thus it became substandard, as Iodized Salt can lose its iodine due to the environmental factors.
The Court, while allowing the appeal, held that the report of the RFL, which is otherwise final, loses its significance, as it was not in compliance with the 2011 Rules. The Court also held that neither the Adjudicating Officer nor the Tribunal considered any of these crucial findings. The Court opined that the finding by the Adjudicating Officer and the Tribunal that the appellants contravened the provisions of Sections 26(2)(ii) and 27(1) of the Act was contrary to the established procedure of analysis of sample. The Court stated that the provisions of the Act were penal in nature and therefore, the time limit for analysis must be scrupulously followed.
Thus, the Court quashed and set aside the orders of the Adjudicating Officer and the Tribunal and held that a penalty cannot be imposed based on such report as it suffered from non-compliance of mandatory provisions. The Court further directed Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (‘FSSAI’) to issue advisory/office order/circular in terms of what the Court noted in the present case.
[TATA Chemicals Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1342, decided on 09-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellants: Advocate A. K. Somani
For the Respondent: APG Bhagwan M. Lonare
