Orissa High Court

M/S. Indo Nissin Foods Pvt. Ltd vs Food Safety And Standards .... Opposite ... on 20 June, 2025

Author: S.K. Panigrahi

Bench: S.K. Panigrahi

                                                                 Signature Not Verified
                                                                 Digitally Signed
                                                                 Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
                                                                 Reason: Authentication
                                                                 Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
                                                                 Date: 20-Jun-2025 17:52:08




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              W.P.(C) No.10477 of 2025

       (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
       Constitution of India, 1950).

        M/s. Indo Nissin Foods Pvt. Ltd.,      ....                       Petitioner(s)
        Bangalore
                                      -versus-
        Food Safety and Standards                ....          Opposite Party (s)
        Authority of India & Ors.
     Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

        For Petitioner(s)           :                    Mr. Sumit Lal, Advocate



        For Opposite Party (s)      :                     Mr. Sanjay Rath, AGA.


                 CORAM:
                 DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

                       DATE OF HEARING:-02.05.2025
                      DATE OF JUDGMENT:-20.06.2025
     Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, challenges the continued

adjudication of Adjudication Case No.2 of 2016 before the learned

Additional District Magistrate-cum-Adjudicating Authority, Cuttack,

on the ground that it is arbitrary, unlawful, and in violation of the order

dated 31.03.2016 issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of

India (FSSAI) / Opposite Party No.1.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The petitioner is a multinational company engaged in the business of

fast-moving consumer goods, with its registered office located at No.

1102, 11th Floor, Raheja Towers, West Wing, 28 M.G. Road, Bangalore

560001.

(ii) On 09.06.2015, at approximately 11:30 A.M., the Food Safety Officer

conducted an inspection of the business premises of Accused No. 2. At

the time of inspection, the Depot In-Charge, Mr. Abhisek Agarwal, was

present and was found conducting transactions involving food articles

relating to Indo Nissin products.

(iii) The Food Safety Officer disclosed his identity to Mr. Agarwal and

communicated his intention to inspect the food articles displayed for

sale. During the course of inspection, stocks of 'Top Ramen Masala -

Instant Noodles' and 'Top Ramen Curry Veg - Saucy Flat Noodles' in

280-gram poly packs were found stored at the premises.

(iv) The Food Safety Officer served a notice in Form VA under Rule 2.4.1(3)

of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011, upon Mr. Abhisek

Agarwal, and proceeded to purchase eight 280-gram poly packs of each

variety of the noodles. All requisite formalities concerning the packing

and sampling of the purchased items were duly completed by the Food

Safety Officer.

(v) On the following day, i.e., 10.06.2015, a portion of each sample was

forwarded by the Food Safety Officer to the Office of the City Health

Officer, Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Cuttack, for further analysis.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(vi) Pursuant to the direction of the Food Safety Commissioner, Odisha, the

Food Safety Officer forwarded one part of the sample to the Director,

State Public Health Laboratory, Pune. In compliance with the said

direction, the Director issued Report Nos. D.O.-72/15/388/2015 and

D.O.-73/15/389/2015, wherein it was opined that the sample of 'Top

Ramen Masala' was substandard. The report recorded the presence of

Monosodium L-Glutamate (MSG) in the sample, despite the product

label bearing the declaration 'No added MSG (poly)', thereby

contravening Regulation 2.3.1(5) of the Food Safety and Standards

(Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011.

(vii) The analysis report was thereafter forwarded to the petitioner.

Subsequently, the Food Safety Officer placed all relevant documents

before the City Health Officer-cum-Designated Officer, Cuttack

Municipal Corporation, Cuttack, for obtaining written consent to

prosecute. Upon receipt of the requisite consent, a case came to be

instituted against the petitioner in the court of the Additional District

Magistrate-cum-Adjudicating Authority, Cuttack/ Opposite Party No.

(viii) Upon receipt of notice from the office of Opposite Party No. 3, the

petitioner entered appearance through its counsel and submitted a

representation under Rule 3.1.1(6) of the Food Safety and Standards

Rules, 2011, categorically denying the allegations made in the

adjudication petition.

(ix) During the pendency of the adjudication proceedings, Opposite Party

No. 1 issued an order dated 31.03.2016 (File No. 1(105)Maggi

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Noodles/2015/FSSAI (Part-I)), clarifying that glutamate occurs

naturally in various foods such as milk, spices, wheat, and vegetables.

It was stated that Monosodium Glutamate (MSG), a sodium salt of

glutamic acid, is one such form of glutamate, and that no analytical

method currently exists to conclusively determine whether MSG in a

product is naturally present or added. Such determination, it was

noted, may only be made through inspection of the manufacturing

premises. The order directed that enforcement action be initiated only

where the label explicitly states 'NO MSG' or 'NO ADDED MSG' and

MSG is subsequently detected.

(x) Relying on the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a petition dated

01.11.2016 before Opposite Party No. 3, seeking dismissal of the

adjudication proceedings on the ground that their continuation would

amount to an abuse of process of law. Although the hearing on the said

petition was concluded, no order was passed.

(xi) Upon inquiry at the office of the Additional District Magistrate, the

petitioner was informed that a response had been sought from the

Commissioner, Food Safety. In the absence of any effective alternative

remedy, the petitioner reiterated its request by filing a subsequent

petition dated 04.12.2018.

(xii) Aggrieved by the prolonged non-disposal of its petitions dated

01.11.2016 and 04.12.2018, and having no efficacious alternative

remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present

Writ Petition.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following

submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The petitioner submitted that the continuation of the adjudication

proceedings is wholly unjustified, arbitrary, and in direct

contravention of the statutory directives issued by Opposite Party No.

1, a statutory authority constituted under the Food Safety and

Standards Act, 2006. The order dated 31st March 2016, issued by

Opposite Party No. 1, clearly establishes that the mere presence of

Monosodium Glutamate in a product does not, by itself, warrant

prosecution. Prosecution can only be initiated if it is conclusively

determined that Monosodium Glutamate (Flavour Enhancer INS E-

621) was deliberately added during the manufacturing process without

the requisite disclosure on the product label.

(ii) The petitioner further contended that, despite having filed petitions

dated 01.11.2016 and 04.12.2018 seeking relief in line with the directives

issued by the FSSAI, the Opposite Party No. 3 has failed to take any

decision thereon, in violation of the principles of natural justice. The

petitioner asserted that the adjudication proceedings, which are

required by statute to be concluded within 90 days, have remained

pending for over nine years without justification. Such prolonged and

unexplained delay renders the process arbitrary, oppressive, and

legally unsustainable, causing serious prejudice and warranting the

intervention of this Court.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(iii) The petitioner submitted that the prolonged pendency of the case has

caused severe prejudice, as it continues to be subjected to unwarranted

legal proceedings despite the existence of a binding order dated

31.03.2016 issued by the FSSAI.

(iv) The petitioner contended that the delay has resulted in significant

reputational damage, particularly given its status as a multinational

company engaged in the manufacture and sale of fast-moving

consumer goods. Furthermore, the petitioner has been left in a state of

legal uncertainty, as the adjudication proceedings remain pending

notwithstanding the clear regulatory stance taken by the FSSAI.

(v) The petitioner contended that it is a well-established principle of law

that justice delayed is justice denied. The failure of the Opposite Parties

to conclude the proceedings within the statutorily prescribed time

frame constitutes a gross violation of the petitioner's fundamental

rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it subjects the

petitioner to an arbitrary, unreasonable, and oppressive legal process.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the

following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The learned Additional District Magistrate-cum-Adjudicating

Authority under the Food Safety and Standards Act, Cuttack,

acknowledged the delay in concluding the adjudication proceedings. It

was accepted that, under the statutory mandate of the Food Safety and

Standards Act, 2006 and the Rules framed thereunder, such

proceedings are required to be concluded within 90 days from the date

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

of initiation. However, in the present case, the matter has remained

pending for over nine years.

IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on

record.

6. The primary issue for consideration in the present Writ Petition is

whether the continuation of Adjudication Case No. 2 of 2016 before the

Additional District Magistrate-cum-Adjudicating Authority, Cuttack,

despite the passage of more than nine years, is legally sustainable in

view of the statutory framework governing adjudication under the

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the Rules framed thereunder.

7. At the outset, this Court is constrained to observe that the scope of the

present petition does not extend to a detailed examination of the

allegations concerning the presence of Monosodium Glutamate in the

petitioner's product. The limited focus of this Court is on the wholly

unexplained and inordinate delay in the adjudication proceedings,

which, by law, are required to be concluded within a stipulated

timeframe.

8. As per the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the Food Safety

and Standards Rules, 2011, adjudication proceedings are to be

concluded expeditiously, and in any event, within 90 days from the

date of the first hearing.

9. Rule 9 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 clearly stipulates

as follows:

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

"9. The Adjudicating Officer shall then give an opportunity to such person or persons to produce such documents or evidence as he may consider relevant to the inquiry and if necessary the hearing may be adjourned to a future date:

Provided that the notice referred to in Rule 3.1.1. (6) may, at the request of the person concerned, be waived:

Provided further that the Adjudicating Officer shall pass the final order within 90 days from the date of first hearing mentioned in Rule 3.1.1(8) above."

10. The statutory scheme envisages a time-bound conclusion of

adjudication proceedings, recognising that undue delay in regulatory

enforcement undermines both procedural fairness and the efficacy of

the statutory framework.

11. However, in the present case, the proceedings have remained pending

since the year 2015, a period exceeding nine years. This Court is at a

loss to understand as to how such an extraordinary delay has occurred

and, more alarmingly, how has it continued unchecked. The record

discloses that despite the petitioner having filed representations in 2016

and again in 2018, no final order has been passed to date. Such

administrative inaction is not only indefensible but also reflects a

disturbing disregard for procedural discipline.

12. It must be underscored that the timelines prescribed under the Rules

are not ornamental. They are not merely directory but reflect the

legislative intent to ensure prompt and effective adjudication in

regulatory matters. Undue delay defeats the very object of such

proceedings and undermines the credibility of the adjudicatory

framework.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

13. This Court strongly deprecates the laxity displayed by Opposite Party

No. 3 in the discharge of its statutory obligations. The prolonged

pendency, without justification or explanation, is symptomatic of

administrative apathy and must be corrected. Legal proceedings

cannot be allowed to linger in perpetuity, particularly when the law

mandates a clear deadline for disposal.

V. CONCLUSION:

14. In light of the foregoing analysis and having regard to the inordinate,

unexplained, and legally impermissible delay in concluding

Adjudication Case No. 2 of 2016, this Court is of the considered view

that the prolonged pendency of the proceedings amounts to an abuse