Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - (1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 21.05.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar in F.S.S. Case No.19 of 2017-18, by which the authority in exercise of power conferred under Section 52 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, has imposed penalty of amount of Rs.75,000/- to be recovered from the petitioner on the ground of the proved allegation of selling substandard food articles (Khowa).
(2.) Mr. Vineet Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following issues (I) the provision as stipulated under Section 49 of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006, has not been followed. (II) the provision of Food Safety and Standard Rules 2011 as 3.1.1 (5), 3.1.1 (6), 3.1.1 (7), 3.1.1 (8), 3.1.1 (9), and 3.1.1 (12) have not been followed, therefore the impugned order is nothing but without any application of mind and not in consonance with the statutory provision as contained under the Act, 2006. It is further the case of the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order merely on the recommendation of the Additional Chief Medical Officer Deoghar-cum- Designated Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C). No.1637 of 2014 in the case of Shri Bhagwan Naidu Vrs. The State of Jharkhand dated 25.06.2014 and order passed by this Court in W.P.(C). No.3354 of 2018 in the case of M/s. Baba Dham Jal Vrs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. dated 04.01.2019.
(3.) The State-respondents have appeared and filed counter affidavit inter alia therein the ground has been taken that there is no infirmity in the order impugned rather the petitioner after being provided with the opportunity and strictly in consonance with the statutory provision as laid down under the Act, 2006 and Rule 2011, the Deputy Commissioner within his jurisdiction has passed the order impugned, therefore, the same may not be interfered with. The submission has been made by refuting the argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the violation of provision of Section 49 of the Act, 2006 of the Rules 2011 by submitting that the Section 49 speaks about quantification of the money wherever it is possible but taking into consideration the factual aspect involved in this case that the food articles (Khowa) has been seized from the shops and in course of the testing of the sample has followed the procedures wherefrom it has been found that the food articles is sub-standard and as such a prosecution has been initiated for violation of the provision of Section 51 of the Act, 2006 and proper penalty of Rs.75,000/- have been imposed and therefore it is not a case in the nature where the sub-standard food grain articles can be quantified in terms of money since the sub-standard directly relates to the bad effect upon the human beings since the article is to be used by the human beings. So far as the contention of the petitioner is that the provision as contained in Rules 3.1 has not been followed, the same is incorrect since the same has strictly been followed and on being satisfied with the nature of the offence committed imposition of penalty, the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, in exercise of power conferred under the statute, has passed the order, hence same is not required to be interfered with.;