# Suresh Kumar Gupta v. The Adjudication Authority/A.D.M., Basti & Ors - **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 446 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2021-08-31 - **Case number:** FAFO No. 1057 of 2021 - **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Subhash Chand - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suresh-kumar-gupta-v-the-adjudication-authority-a-d-m-basti-ors-47428 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote A. Civil Law-Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006-Section 68(2) , 76-the designated officer has not put his recommendations before the Commissioner of Food Safety for sanctioning to run the prosecution against the appellant and after delay of 9 months from the receipt of the analysis report he has itself taken decision to run the prosecution against the appellant-the same is in gross violation of the provisions, which is mandatory under the Act,2006-appellant did not receive notice and could not put his defence-However appellant has deposited 50% of the amount of fine-the deposit shall be subject to the result of appeal-appellate authority will decide the matter afresh.(Para 1 to 12) The appeal is disposed off. (E-6) ## Text 446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived." (emphasis supplied) 11. In the case in hand, grounds for review, as above, and the review application do not satisfy the contours of entertaining the review petition, hence, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned order of this Court dated 23.8.2016. 12. This review application is, therefore, dismissed. ---------- (2021)09ILR A446 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.08.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHAND, J. FAFO No. 1057 of 2021 Suresh Kumar Gupta ...Appellant Versus The Adjudication Authority/A.D.M., Basti & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Madhup Narain Shukla Counsel for the Respondents: ----- A. Civil Law-Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006-Section 68(2) , 76-the designated officer has not put his recommendations before the Commissioner of Food Safety for sanctioning to run the prosecution against the appellant and after delay of 9 months from the receipt of the analysis report he has itself taken decision to run the prosecution against the appellant-the same is in gross violation of the provisions, which is mandatory under the Act,2006-appellant did not receive notice and could not put his defence-However appellant has deposited 50% of the amount of fine-the deposit shall be subject to the result of appeal-appellate authority will decide the matter afresh.(Para 1 to 12) The appeal is disposed off. (E-6) (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. & Hon'ble Subhash Chand, J.) 1. Heard Sri Madhup Narain Shukla , learned counsel for appellant and perused the record. 2. The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 22.06.2019 passed in Case No. 53 of 2017 (State Vs. Suresh Kumar Gupta) under Section 68(2) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. 3. This appeal is under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The appeal requires to be allowed. The provisions of Section 76 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 reads as under: "76. Appeal.- (1) Any person aggrieved by a decision or order of a Special Court may, on payment of such fee as may be prescribed by the Central Government and after depositing the amount, if any, imposed by way of penalty, compensation or damage under this Act, within forty-five days from the date on which the order was 9 All. Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs. The Adjudicating Authority/A.D.M., Basti & Ors. 447 served, prefer an appeal to the High Court: Provided that the High Court may entertain any appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause for filing the appeal within the said period. (2) An appeal preferred under this section shall be disposed of by the High Court by a bench of not less than two judges." 4. The Designated Officer after scrutiny of the report of Food Analyst shall decide as to whether the contravention is punishable with imprisonment or fine only and in the case of contravention punishable with imprisonment, he shall send his recommendations within fourteen days to the Commissioner of Food Safety for sanctioning prosecution. It means the designated officer after scrutiny of the analyst report and if he found that the contravention is punishable with imprisonment or fine, then he will send his recommendations to the Commissioner of Food Safety for sanctioning to run prosecution within 14 days. But in the present case the designated officer has not put his recommendations before the Commissioner of Food Safety for sanctioning to run prosecution against the appellant and after delay of 9 months from the receipt of the analysis report 02.03.2016, on 05.12.2016 he has itself taken decision to run the prosecution against the appellant, however, the same officer was holding the post Adjudicating Officer. Therefore the same is in gross violation of the provisions, which is mandatory under the Act, 2006. 5. The order of the authority below cannot be sustained for scrutiny before this Hon'ble Court as the same is passed without affording any reasonable opportunity to the appellant though of course notice was issued way back in the year 2017 but as per the appellant it was never served on the appellant. However, while entertaining this appeal we feel that the authority concerned has not mentioned the fact that the notice was received but in fact the appellant has not received the notice and could not put to his defence. The appellant is not a manufacturer and according to the appellant this aspect of the matter has not been looked into. 6. While condoning the delay we have directed the appellant to deposit 50% amount of fine. In compliance of the order dated 17.08.2021 the appellant has deposited 50% of the amount of fine i.e. Rs.20,000/- on 27.08.2021. Receipt of deposit has been brought of on record as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. 7. The ground to set aside the order impugned is on hyper technical grounds as the principles of natural justice has not been followed by the quasi judicial authority while passing the said order. The appeal is allowed and the order impugned dated 22.06.2019 is set aside. 8. The allowing of this appeal is on technical ground that neither Sri S.K. Gupta nor his client was issued any notice. There is disputed question of fact that he was issued notice or yet to be issued. There is also dispute regarding signature of the appellant in the order-sheet. 9. We direct the parties to appear before the Adjudication Authority for adjudication of the case within one week from today as the respondent has raised dispute regarding his presence before the 448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Adjudication Authority, Basti. Further he was never served with any notice. 10. Secondly, we have tried to balance the respondent by deposit of 50% of the amount under the order impugned. The amount deposited is sought to be substantiated by the Supplementary affidavit. Normally we could not accept the affidavit in Court rather direct to file the same in the registry because the matter is being disposed of finally, hence we accept it and the same be taken on record. 11. The deposit shall be subject to result of the appeal. The appellate authority will decide the matter afresh after providing full opportunity to the parties within a period of twelve weeks from today. 12. We are thankful to the counsel for the parties who have assisted the Court in disposing of this appeal finally. 13. Let the record of court below be sent back to the concerned Adjudication Authority, Basti. ---------- (2021)09ILR A448 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.09.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHAND, J. FAFO No. 1093 of 2021 Satya Prabha Devi & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Chola Mandal M S General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Neerja Singh, Sri Sharve Singh Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, Sri Pawan Kumar Singh A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988Section 176-challenge to-claim-the tribunal considered the deceased income Rs. 14,124 per month but has not granted future loss of income-Total compensation would be Rs. 29,90,000/- and rate of interest would be 6% -the insurance company shall deposit the amount within period of 12 weeks.(Para 1 to 13) The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6) List of Cases cited: 1. Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transp. Corpn. (2009) 6 SCC 121 2. National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & ors. (2017) 0 Supreme SC 1050 3. Sunil Sharma & ors. Bachitar Singh & ors. (2011) 3 TAC 629 4. Raghuveer Singh Matolya & ors. Vs Hari Singh Malviya & ors. (2009) IV ACC 933 SC 5. New India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Urmila Shukla & ors. in Civil Appeal No. 4634 of 2021 6. Vimal Kanwar & ors. Vs Kishor Dan & ors. (2013) 30 AC 6 SC 7. A.V. Padma Vs Venugopal (2012) 1 GLH SC 442 8. Smt. Hansaguti P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. (2007) 2 GLH 291 9. Smt Sudesna & ors. Vs Hari Singh & anr. FAFO No. 23 of 2001 10. Lakkamma & ors. Vs The Regional Manager M/S United India Ins. Co. Ltd. & anr. (2021) AIR SC 3301 (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.