Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Praveen on 28 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1 WA-2860-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
WRIT APPEAL No. 2863 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
RAJKUMAR
Appearance:
Shri Bhuwan Gautam learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State.
Shri Suyash Malpani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Akash Rathi,
counsel for respondent.
WITH
WRIT APPEAL No. 2859 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
BHARAT
Appearance:
Shri Bhuwan Gautam learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State.
Shri Suyash Malpani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Akash Rathi,
counsel for respondent.
WRIT APPEAL No. 2860 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
PRAVEEN
Appearance:
Shri Bhuwan Gautam learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State.
Shri Suyash Malpani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Akash Rathi,
counsel for respondent.
WRIT APPEAL No. 2862 of 2024
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 28-08-2025
17:44:37
2 WA-2860-2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
MAHAKAL MAWA BHANDAR THROUGH PROPRIETOR PINKY
Appearance:
Shri Bhuwan Gautam learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State.
Shri Suyash Malpani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Akash Rathi,
counsel for respondent.
HEARD ON:19.05.2025
Delivered On: 28.08.2025
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Gajendra Singh:
1. These writ appeals under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchha
Nyayalaya Khand Nyapith Ko Appeal Adhiniyam, 2005 have been preferred
arising out of the common order dated 03.09.2024 passed in WP
Nos.10219/2024, 10223/2024, 10527/2024 and 10532/2024, whereby the
writ petitions challenging the report of Referral Food Laboratory, Pune were
allowed and the the report was set aside.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that the writ petitioners have stored
their Mawa in a cold storage. On 17.08.2023, the Food Safety Officer
conducted a search in his premises and took the samples of the mawa.
Thereafter, the samples were sent to the food analyst, State Food Testing
Laboratory, Bhopal. The said laboratory furnished a report to the effect that
the samples of mawa have been found to be of "within norms". Thereafter,
the writ petitioners were informed on 19.10.2023 that the samples have been
sent for testing to a Referral Food Laboratory, Pune. The report of Referral
Food Laboratory, Pune dated 16.11.2023 was received as per which the
samples of the mawa belonging to the writ petitioners were found to be of
3 WA-2860-2024
"Substandard Quality". Thereafter, the order dated 21.12.2023 for destroying
the entire mawa has been passed.
3. The report of the testing laboratory was challenged by the writ
petitioners on the ground that upon receipt of the report from the food
analyst, for the same to be sent to Referral Food Laboratory, it was
imperative for the Designated Officer to have recorded reasons in writing
before forming an opinion that the report delivered by the food analyst is
erroneous. However, the same was not done and the samples were sent to the
Referral Food Laboratory. The report received from such laboratory is hence
vitiated.
4. The learned single, after appreciating the evidence and submissions
made by both the parties, has allowed the writ petitions and the reports
received from the Director, Referral Food Laboratory, Pune were set aside
by recording reasons in para no.7 of the impugned order which reproduced
as under:-
7. As per the aforesaid rule, upon receipt of the report
from the food analyst under Rule 2.4.2(5) the
Designated Officer has to form an opinion which has to
be recorded in writing giving reasons that the said
report is erroneous. Thereafter, he may forward the
sample to the referral laboratory for analysis. However,
in the present matter the Designated Officer by this
dated 19.10.2023 has only recorded that the report
received from the food analyst is erroneous and
unsatisfactory. However, opinion based on reasons to
be recorded in writing has not been formed. It was
imperative for him to record his reasons in writing as to
why he has formed an opinion that the report delivered
by the food analyst is erroneous. However, he has not
done so. The second report received from the Referral
Food Laboratory is hence in contravention to the
4 WA-2860-2024
aforesaid Rule and consequently, cannot be sustained.
5. These writ appeals challenging the impugned order are on the
ground that samples were taken as per the procedure mentioned in Section
47 of The Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006. The samples were sent to
State Laboratory and out of 21 samples, 05 samples were failed and Referral
Food Laboratory, Pune has given a certificate that all the samples were of
"Substandard" on various counts. If the persons from whom possession the
sample is taken, is not convinced with the report of the State Department, he
may also prefer that one sample may be sent for laboratory for testing, where
no reasoning is required. Certificate of Referral Laboratory, Pune would
supersede the report of State Laboratory. It has been found by the Referral
Food Laboratory, Pune that the samples are of sub-standards and hence, the
prosecution against the respondent was initiated and the same is subjudice
before the Additional District Magistrate. As per Clause 2.4.6 of the Food
Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of
2011), the person from whom the samples have drawn, can appeal against
the report of the State Board and Form-VIII should be provide to him within
30 days from the date of receipt of the analysis report, the appeal can be
preferred, in such cases, where the samples were sent to Referral Food
Laboratory, Pune and Mysore. Similar provision is available to the person
from whom the sample is drawn and the same power is reserved by the State
Government. There is no provision in Form-VIII as to record, why the
person is aggrieved with the report. Even on the count of equality, there is no
requirement that a reason should be recorded but the law provided under
Clause 2.4.3 of the Rules of 2011, that the reasons should be recorded in
5 WA-2860-2024
writing while referring the matter to Referral Food Laboratory, Pune. In the
covering note, it was mentioned that the report of the State Board faulty and
hence, 16 samples were sent to the Referral Food Laboratory, Pune on
19.10.2023. The article 'Mawa' is an edible article and maintaining the food
standards is a duty casted on the appellant's department. It was when the
inspections were carried out and 21 samples were taken and out of which 05
samples were found to be sub-standard and rest of 16 samples were sent to
the Referral Food Laboratory, Pune where it was found that they were of
Sub-standard. Hence, the learned single judge has committed error of law in
setting aside the report of Referral Food Laboratory, Pune.
6. Counsel for the writ petitioners have opposed the prayer by
supporting the impugned order.
7. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Firstly, Clause 2.4.3 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 ,
is being reproduced as under:-
"2.4.3: Action by Designated Officer on the report of
Food Analyst:-
If, after considering the report, the Designated
Officer is of the opinion for reason(s) to be recorded in
writing, that the report delivered by the Food Analyst
Under Rule 2.4.2(5) is erroneous, he shall forward one
of the parts of the sample kept by him to referral
laboratory, for analysis and if the analysis report of such
referral laboratory is to the effect that the article of food
is unsafe or sub-standard or mis-branded or containing
extraneous matter, the provisions of Rule 3.1 shall, so
far as may, apply."
9. We are dealing with the submissions of writ appellants that there is
6 WA-2860-2024
no requirement of Clause 2.4.3 of the Rules of 2011 that Designated Officer
should record reasons or at least, it is not a mandatory provision. In Clause
2.4.3 of the Rules of 2011, the word used are that "if after considering the
report, the Designated Officer is of the opinion for reason(s) to be recorded
in writing that the report delivered by the Food Analyst Under Rule 2.4.2(5)
is erroneous."
10. In the above Clause the words "opinion" and requirement of
recording the reasons in "writing", clearly mention the procedure to be
followed before forwarding one of the parts of the samples to the Referral
Laboratory for analysis.
11. Where a Rule requires, reasons to be recorded in writing, they
have to be meaningful and self-speaking reasons. They cannot be based on
surmises and conjunctures. Amplifying on what constitutes "reasons", the
Supreme Court, in UOI v Mohan Lal Capoor 1973 (2) SCC 836 , has held
that held:
"Reasons are the links between the materials on which
certain conclusions are based and the actual
conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to
the subject-matter for a decision whether it is purely
administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a
rational nexus between the facts considered and the
conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or
decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and
reasonable."
12. Similarly, referring to the above case of Mohan Lal (supra) , High
Court of Delhi in the case of Union of India vs. Anand Mohan Sharan;
7 WA-2860-2024
2024:DHC:7900-DB has held that the reasons which do not enable the link to
be drawn between the material on which the conclusion is to be drawn and
the actual conclusion are not, therefore, reasons at all.
13. Now, we are referring to the opinion of Designated Officer, Food
and Drugs Administration, District Ujjain mentioning the following words as
under:
उपरो वषय म लेख है क म य दे श शासन के िनदश पर
जला कले टर के मागदशन म खा पदाथ म िमलावट के
व उ जैन जले म अिभयान चलाया जा रहा है । अिभयान
अंतगत खा ित ान का िनर ण कर नमूना कायवाह क
जा रह है । रा य खा पर ण योगशाला भोपाल से ा
जांच रपोट ु टपूण एवं असंतोषजनक पाये जाने पर संल न
सूची अनुसार 16 नमून के तीय भाग पर ण हे तु आपक
ओर भेजे जा रहे है । उ नमून के शु क का दे यक बल इस
कायालय को िभजवाने पर भुगतान कर दया जावेगा।
14. In view of the aforesaid extract and bare reading of the opinion,
the "opinion" of the Designated Officer, in our considered view, does not
constitute "reasons to be recorded in writing" as envisaged under Rule 2.4.3
of the Rules of 2011. We are firmly agreed that the learned Writ Court has
rightly arrived at a conclusion that "reasons to be recorded in writing" has not
been formed.
15. Now, we are considering the argument that the report of Referral
Food Laboratory, Pune, shall supersede the report of food analyst. The word
in Rule 1.4.6(1) of the Rules of 2011 are that the report of Referral Food
Laboratory, Pune shall be final in this regard. The word used is "Final" and
not "supersede". Under Section 13(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954, a certificate given by the Director of Central Food Laboratory,
shall supersede the report given by Public Analyst. Such a provision is not
8 WA-2860-2024
there in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The word "final" and
"supersede" have different meaning. The word "final" emphasizing
completion or conclusiveness while the word "supersede" implies
replacement as held by Kerala High Court in the case of Pepsico India
Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala and Anr. 2024 : KER: 67629 .
16. In view of the above, we have not found any substance in the
submissions of learned counsel for the writ appellant. Accordingly, the
appeals are dismissed.
17. A copy of this judgment be kept in the record of other connected
Writ Appeals.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
amit
