Uttarakhand High Court
Britannia Industries Ltd vs Unknown on 18 September, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2024:UHC:6742
Office Notes, reports,
SL. orders or proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No. directions and Registrar's
order with Signatures
AO No.376 of 2024
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. P.R. Mullick, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. Mr. Devendra Pant and Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari,
learned Standing Counsel for the State.
3. This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section
71(6) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter
referred to as "Food Safety Act, 2006") against the judgment
and order dated 20.07.2024, passed by Food Safety Appellate
Tribunal, Kumaon Division, Haldwani, Nainital in Misc.
Appeal No.5 of 2023, Amit Sharma, Factory Manager
Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs. Food Safety Officer, Sitarganj,
whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment
and order of the Adjudicating Officer dated 09.06.2023 has
been rejected as being time barred.
4. It is case of the appellant that the petition was proceeded
by the Adjudicating Officer in Adjudication Case No.51/66 of
2022, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Prabodh Kher under the
provisions of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
5. The Adjudicating Officer by reason of the aforesaid
judgment and order dated 09.06.2023 passed in aforesaid
adjudication case has imposed a fine of ₹1,50,000/- upon the
appellant and further directed the appellant to deposit the
aforesaid amount within a period of one month in the court of
Adjudicating Officer/Additional District Magistrate (Finance
and Revenue), Udham Singh Nagar by way of a bank draft.
6. The appellant feeling aggrieved challenged the said
order by preferring Misc. Appeal No.5 of 2023. The said
appeal was filed by the appellant after the prescribed period of
limitation i.e., 30 days as prescribed under Rule 3.3.1 of the
Food Safety and Standard Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to
as "Food Safety Rules, 2011").
2024:UHC:6742
7. Under Rule 3.1 of the Food Safety Rules, 2011, the
Appellate Tribunal has power to condone the delay of
maximum 30 days.
8. Since the appeal of the appellant was filed beyond 60
days, therefore the appeal was dismissed as time barred.
9. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order
dated 20.07.2024, passed by Food Safety Appellate Tribunal,
Kumaon Region, Haldwani (Nainital), appellant is before this
Court by filing the present appeal under Section 71(6) of the
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that
the Appellate Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides
that the provision of Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to an
appeal made to a Tribunal except as otherwise provided in
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
Tribunal has ample power to condone the delay under Section
5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as it has not been provided under
Food Safety Act, 2006.
12. Per contra, learned State counsel has drawn attention of
this Court to provision of Rule 3.3.1 of Rules of 2011.
13. It is submitted by learned counsel for the State that the
power to enlarge the period of limitation is with the Appellate
Tribunal which is only to the extent of 30 days and within all
these 60 days, the appeal should have been filed preferred by
the appellant after 60 days of the judgment under the appeal.
14. Having considered the submission made by learned
counsel for the parties and having perused the judgment
impugned in the writ petition and in light of the provision of
Rule concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the Appellate
Tribunal has got right to enhance the period of limitation only
2024:UHC:6742
for a period of 30 days and therefore the Tribunal was right in
dismissing the appeal holding it time barred.
15. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the
appellant that the Rules cannot override the said provisions of
the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and therefore the
judgment impugned is bad in law and contrary to the principle
of law and if an interpretation is taken in the matter that the
Rules can override the express provision of the law then the
provision of Section 76(1) of the Food Safety Act, 2006 would
be otiose.
16. So far as argument submitted by learned counsel for the
appellant that the Rules cannot override the provision of
statutory provisions of the Act is concerned, the argument is
bereft of any merit for the reason that the Rules itself provides
under the Food Safety Act, 2006, therefore the exception as
already provided under Section 71(5) of the Food Safety Act,
2006 and such an interpretation would defeat the provisions of
Food Safety Act, 2006.
17. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, this Court does
not find any reason to interfere in the appeal and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
18.09.2024
SK
SHUBHAM Digitally signed by SHUBHAM KAPRUWAN
KAPRUWAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=a29a2f80b93835a432d093afc472d9355959ee0ff878380c645e17d546a24821, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=B505B049BA2FDAC35E7AE325DEE1505D6C35AF3D290C229CDC609D61801E1E4F, cn=SHUBHAM KAPRUWAN
Date: 2024.09.18 19:27:42 +05'30'
