- (1.) Heard Sri S.P. Gupta, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rudro Chatterjee along with Sri Aseem Goswami for the respondents no.2 and 3 and Sri H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State as well as Sri Pandey, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India.
(2.) This petition was entertained by a Division Bench of this Court by the following order :- "Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain,J. Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Heard Sri S. P. Gupta, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Pushpila Bisht for the petitioner. Sri Gupta, at the very outset, has made a statement at Bar that he does not want to press prayer No.'(d)' which is on page 50 of the petition. Accordingly, he is allowed to delete prayer clause '(d)' of the prayer made in the writ petition during the course of the day. The petitioner has challenged the impugned suspension order dated 2nd July, 2015, as contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. An objection has been taken by the opposite parties, namely by the Standing Counsel as well as Assistant Solicitor General of India that against the said suspension order an appeal lies under Section 32 (4) (C) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Sri Gupta has submitted that he has already preferred an appeal but an objection has been taken by the opposite parties vide their reply on behalf of Food Safety and Standards Authority of India Act that appeal is not maintainable in the case of the petitioner. For the reasons enumerated in the reply there appears contradictory standard between statutory provision as well as the grounds taken by the Central Licensing Authority viz-a-viz Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. Sri S. B. Pandey, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India prays for and is granted ten days' time to seek instructions as to how contradictory stands against the statutory provision has been taken by the opposite party No.2 List / put up on 12th October, 2015 as fresh to enable learned Assistant Solicitor General of India to seek complete instructions including the specific query. Learned Standing counsel may also seek instructions till that date. Order Date :-24.9.2015"
(3.) The main challenge raised in this petition is to the order passed on 2.7.2015 by the Central Licensing Authority under the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 read with 2011 Rules and 2011 Regulations framed thereunder. The order proceeds to suspend the license for manufacturing vanaspati by the petitioner on the ground that the sample which was collected by the respondents was found to be sub-standard and unsafe and had tested positive for rancidity. The powers seem to have been exercised under sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the 2006 Act. A further direction has been given to the Food Safety Commissioner as per Section 42(3) of the said Act for sanctioning prosecution under Section 59 of the said Act. The other relief claimed in the writ petition is that the respondents should not interfere with the manufacturing rights of the petitioner which has come to a stand still on account of the passing of the impugned order. A prayer to quash the order dated 9.7.2015 prohibiting the petitioner's business has been made. The petitioner has also questioned the interim order dated 16.7.2015 of the learned Commissioner to the extent a limited permission has been given to the petitioner. Sri Gupta, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, has advanced his submissions, firstly contending that the impugned order is in violation of the procedure prescribed under the 2006 Act read with the rules and regulations framed thereunder, inasmuch as principles of natural justice statutorily incorporated in the said provisions have been clearly violated. He further submits that nothing exists to attract the ingredients so as to warrant suspending of the licence. He then submits that even otherwise the petitioner has been adversely affected and his right to freedom of practicing a trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India also stands violated. He, therefore, submits that even if the petitioner has approached the Appellate Authority by filing of an appeal, the same does not take away his right to maintain this writ petition in the aforesaid background when the entire unit has come to a stand still and not only the manufacturing process has been stopped but all others involved with the said unit including labourers and consumers have been unnecessarily been put to a loss.;