Allahabad court Judgment on Milk

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 59
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4499 of 2019
Petitioner :- Furkan
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bharti Kashyap,Tinku Singh,Vijay Singh Gour
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Vijay Singh Gour, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.M. Pandey, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
The complaint case was filed by the Food Safety Officer, Moradabad on 8.9.2016 on the ground that the petitioner was carrying milk and a sample thereof was drawn on 10.9.2016 at 8 AM near Vivekanand Hospital, P.S. Civil Lines, Moradabad. As per report of the Food analyst dated 17.10.2016, the sample was found to be a mixed milk. Deficiency in milk fat and milk solid was found. The case No.3292 of 2017 (State Vs. Furkan) was registered which has been decided by order dated 25.01.2019, passed by Additional District Magistrate, City - Moradabad, imposing penalty of Rs.4,50,000/- under Section 51 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Section 51 of the Act provides for maximum penalty of Rs.5 lacs. By the impugned order a little less than the maximum penalty has been imposed without recording any cogent reasons for imposing such a high penalty. Aggrieved with the said order the petitioner filed a F.S.S.A. Appeal No.21 of 2019, in which an interim order dated 11.04.2019, has been passed by the Appellate Court which is non speaking and does not record any reason for granting interim stay only to the extent of 50% of the penalty imposed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his appeal itself may be decided within a time bound period and till than no recovery may be made from him.
Learned standing counsel supports the impugned order.
I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties.
I find that the order dated 25.01.2019, imposing penalty of Rs,4,50,000/- is an ex-party order. It does not contain any reason whatsoever for imposing penalty to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- as against the maximum penalty of Rs.5 lacs contemplated under Section 51 of the Act. The Appellate Court while passing the impugned interim order dated 11.4.2019, has not given any reason to stay penalty only to the extent of 50%. In paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21, the petitioner has stated that he is innocent and has been malafidely implicated by the respondent no.4 and the allegation levelled are false and frivolous and the relevant provisions have not been observed in the alleged sampling.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety and to meet the ends of justice particularly in view of the fact that the order imposing penalty is an ex parte order, I find it appropriate to modify the interim order dated 11.04.2019 by staying penalty and direct the concerned court below to decide F.S.S.A. Appeal No.21 of 2019 (Furkan Vs. State)� in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned subject to deposit of Rs.20,000/- by the petitioner with the Court below within six weeks from today. The court below shall decide the appeal without being influenced by any observations made above.
With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.5.2019/vkg

Share on:

Comet Bio invests in sustainable food manufacturing facility

Comet Bio, a manufacturer of healthy and sustainable ingredients, announced an investment with RE Energy to build a manufacturing facility in Denmark.