CARGILL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS
LAWS(UTN)-2012-11-94
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on November 26,2012

Cargill India Private Limited Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand and others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:- (a) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 16-8-2012 (Annexure-2) and give appropriate opportunity to the petitioner company to cross-examine the witness as per its application filed in the adjudication proceedings bearing no. 14/2012 initiated by the Food Safety Officer, Roorkee for the alleged violation of Section 3(1)(zf)(i)(a) and (b), 31(1)(zf)(B)(ii), Section 3(1)(zx), Section 24, Section 26(2)(ii) & (v), Section 27(2)(c) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Regulation 2.2(3)(i), 2.3(5), 2.4.2(1) & 2.4.6(1) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling )Regulations, 2011 punishable under Sections 51, 52, 53 and 66 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 before the Adjudicating Officer/Additional District Magistrate, Haridwar. (b) any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Food Safety Officer, Roorkee Tehsil Roorkee on 13.2.2012 at 11.30 a.m. inspected the retail store of M/s Bharti Retail Pvt. Ltd. took sample of Sun Flower Oil and the manufacturer M/s Cargill India Pvt. Ltd. was also made party and the sample was sent for analysis. According to report of Director, referral Laboratory the sample does not conform to standards of 'Sunflower Oil' and contravenes regulations 2.2.2(3)(i), 2.3.(5), 2.4.2(1) and 2.4.6(10 of Food Safety and Stadards (Packaging and Labeling) Regulations.
(3.) It appears from a reading of the Proviso appended to subclause (9) of Rule 3.1.1 of the Rules that the Adjudicating Officer shall pass the final order within 90 days from the date of first hearing mentioned in rule 3.1.1 (8) above. Sub-clause (8) of the said Rule provides that on the date fixed for hearing, the Adjudicating Officer shall explain to the person or persons proceeded against or to his authorized representative, the offence alleged to have been committed by such person, indicating the provision of the Act, rules or regulations in respect of which the contravention is alleged to have taken place and the opportunity has to be given in view of sub-clause (9) of Rule 3.1.1, which provides that the Adjudicating Officer shall then given an opportunity to such person or persons to produce such documents or evidence as he may consider relevant to the inquiry and if necessary the hearing may be adjourned to a future date.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.