- (1.) Heard Sri Shashi Kant Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Kanta Verma, learned A.G.A.for the State of U.P.
(2.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner Uttam Chand Baranwal with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 19.4.2014 passed by respondent no. 2 Adjudicating Officer/Additional District Magistrate ( Admin) Deoria and to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondent authorities not to recover the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- from the petitioner.
(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 19.4.2014 passed by respondent no. 2 is illegal arbitrary and , as such, is liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner's counsel by mistake has accepted the allegations which were levelled by the Food Security Officer, Barhaj, District Deoria and on the basis of his acceptance, respondent no. 2 has imposed the penalty of Rs.50,000/-, which is illegal and has been arbitrarily imposed. It is a well settled principle of law that the client should not suffer by mistake of his counsel. The actual case of the petitioner is that no such type of articles, which were alleged by the Food Security Officer Barhaj, District Deoria, were recovered from the shop of the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 made a false allegation upon the petitioner about selling of the alleged sugar boiled confectionery which was said to be sub standard. The impugned order has been passed against the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 ( hereinafter referred to as Act). The recovered article has not been sent to the Food Analyst in accordance with the method prescribed in the Food Safely and Standards Act , 2006. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that since the impugned order is appealable before the appellate tribunal but on the day of passing the impugned order, it was not in existence, it has been established subsequently at Gorakhpur in pursuance of the Notification No. 713/Saat Neyay-2-2014/38G/2010 dated 23rd May, 2014 ,therefore, the appeal against the impugned order may not be entertained by the appellate Tribunal established at Gorakhpur, it may not function with retrospective effect. therefore, the impugned order has been challenged before this Court by way of filing present writ petition for exercising the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;