CARGILL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Cargill India Private Limited
State of Uttarakhand and others
Click here to view full 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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.