[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajeev Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 January, 2026
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2500
1 MSA-18-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 20th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No. 18 of 2025
RAJEEV KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kumar Bahirani - Advocate for appellant.
Mr. C.P. Singh - G.A. for respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
This miscellaneous second appeal under Section 71(6) of Food Safety
and Standards Act, 2006 (in short "Act, 2006") has been filed against the
order dated 13/03/2005 passed by Appellate Tribunal / 3 rd District Judge,
Morena, District Morena in M.J.C. No. 30/2024 as well as order dated
09/05/2022 passed by Adjudicating Officer / Additional District Magistrate,
District Morena in Case No. 30/2021/Food Safety, by which a fine of Rs.
2,00,000/- has been imposed for violation of Section 26 of the Act, 2006.
2. It is submitted by Counsel for appellant that copy of the order dated
09/05/2022 passed by Additional District Magistrate / Adjudicating Officer
was never supplied to appellant, and therefore, appellant could not file an
appeal within the period of limitation as provided under Rule 3.3.1 of the
Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 (in short "Rules, 2011").
Accordingly, after receiving copy of the said order, he preferred an appeal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2500
2 MSA-18-2025
along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and by the
impugned order, Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the application filed
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and in consequence thereof, appeal
has also been dismissed as barred by time.
3. Challenging the order passed by Appellate Tribunal, it is submitted
by Counsel for appellant that as per Rule 3.3.1(1) of the Rules, 2011, the
limitation for filing an appeal under Section 70 of the Act, 2006 is within a
period of 30 days from the date on which copy of the order, against which
the appeal is filed, is received by the appellant . It is further provided that the
Appellate Tribunal may allow a maximum of another 30 days to entertain an
appeal if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal
within a period of 30 days. It is further submitted that Rule 3.1.2(6) of the
Rules, 2011 provides that a notice or an order issued under these rules shall
be served on the person or the persons against whom the adjudication
proceedings were held or inquiry has been conducted, in the manner
provided in the aforesaid provision. It is submitted that copy of the order can
be delivered either to that person or his duly authorized representative, or by
sending it to the person by registered post with acknowledgement due to the
address of his place of residence or his last known place of residence or the
place where he carried on or last carried on, business or personally works or
last worked for gain, or if it cannot be served in the manner specified under
Rule 3.1.2(6)(i) or (ii), then by affixing it on the outer door or some other
conspicuous part of the premises in which that person resides or is known to
have last resided or carried on business or personally works or has worked
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2500
3 MSA-18-2025
for gain and written report thereof should be witnessed by two persons. It is
submitted that in the present case, copy of the order was never supplied to
appellant, and therefore, period of limitation for filing an appeal had never
started to run because the appeal has to be filed within a period of 30 days
from the day on which the copy of order against which the appeal is filed is
received by the appellant. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that in
fact, the period of limitation had not started to run, and although the appeal
itself was within a period of limitation from the date of receipt of copy of
order, but even then, by way of abundant caution, appellant had filed an
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the Appellate Tribunal
has ignored the aforesaid vital submissions.
4. Heard learned counsel for appellant.
5. Since the controversial issue was raised by appellant with regard to
non-service of copy of the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority,
therefore, record of the Adjudicating Authority was summoned. After the
same was received, it was found that there was no document to show that
whether the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority was ever sent to
appellant or not. Accordingly, this Court, by order dated 12/01/2026, had
granted time to the State Counsel to produce the record in respect of dispatch
of copy of order dated 09/05/2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority.
Today, a reply has been filed by the State pointing out that copy of order was
dispatched to appellant by an ordinary mode.
6. Shri Ashwini Kumar Rawat, ADM, Morena is also present in person
and fairly conceded that copy of the order passed by the Adjudicating
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2500
4 MSA-18-2025
Authority was not sent by registered post. He submitted that he is aware of
the fact that as per the provisions of Rule 3.1.2(6) of Rules, 2011, copy of
the order should have been sent by registered post but the same was not
done. It is submitted that a mistake was committed by the concerned clerk.
However, in spite of repeated queries, Shri Ashwini Kumar Rawat did not
say that he would take any departmental action against the person who had
committed a material illegality by sending the order by ordinary post even in
the teeth of Rule 3.1.2(6) of Rules, 2011. When Shri Rawat was further
cross-examined by this Court, then half-heartedly he said that he would take
departmental action against the person who has deliberately or unknowingly
sent the order by ordinary post.
7. It is really surprising that there is a statutory provision requiring the
dispatch of order by registered post, still the authorities are dispatching the
orders, as in this case, by ordinary post, and the ADM, who is responsible
under the Act, 2006, to act as an Adjudicating Authority is not ready to
correct his own office.
8. Be that whatever it may be.
9. Once Shri Ashwini Kumar Rawat, ADM, Morena has stated before
this Court that he would take departmental action against the person who is
responsible for sending the copy of order by ordinary post, nothing more is
required except by saying that now it is for the ADM, Morena to think as to
whether he is holding the post for upholding the majesty of law or he is
holding the post for protecting the wrongdoers.
10. Be that whatever it may be.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2500
5 MSA-18-2025
11. The crux of the matter is that copy of the order passed by
Adjudicating Authority was not sent by registered post, and appellant had
denied the receipt of copy of the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority.
Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that since the
period of limitation for filing an appeal would start from the date of receipt
of copy of the order by appellant, therefore, in the present case, the
Appellate Tribunal should have considered the aspect that when the copy of
the Adjudicating Authority was received by appellant.
12. In the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, filed
along with the memo of appeal, it is clearly stated by appellant that he
received the information about the order passed by the Adjudicating Officer
on 08/06/2024. In absence of any documentary evidence to disbelieve the
said contention, coupled with the fact that even the copy of order dated
09/05/2022 was also not sent by registered post, this Court is of considered
opinion that in fact, in the present case, the period of limitation of 30 days
would start from 08/06/2024 and not from any date prior thereto. In the
present case, the appeal was filed on 18/06/2024, i.e., within a period of 30
days from the date of receipt of information of the order dated 09/05/2022
passed by the Adjudicating Authority. Under these circumstances, this Court
is of considered opinion that the Appellate Tribunal / 3 rd District Judge,
Morena, District Morena committed a material illegality by rejecting the
application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
13. Accordingly, order dated 13/03/2005 passed by Food Safety
Tribunal / 3rd District Judge, Morena, District Morena in M.J.C. No. 30/2024
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2500
6 MSA-18-2025
is hereby set aside. Application filed by appellant under Section 5 of
Limitation Act is allowed (although according to this Court, application was
not required at all in the present case) and the appeal is treated to be within
limitation.
14. Parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Tribunal / 3 rd
District Judge, Morena, District Morena on 20/02/2026. No fresh notices
will be required to be issued to any of the parties.
15. Office is directed to immediately return the record of the Appellate
Tribunal as well as the Adjudicating Authority back to the Court of
Appellate Tribunal.
16. With aforesaid observations, this miscellaneous second appeal is
allowed.
17. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the
case and the Appellate Tribunal shall decide the appeal purely on the basis of
material available on record without getting influenced or prejudiced by this
remand order.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AKS
