WP-8477-2016 (SMT. SHEELA JAIN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 07-12-2016
Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri V.Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved by the order vide which not only certain samples were collected from the establishment of the petitioner, but also those premises have been sealed. It is the case of the petitioner that though the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, provides an authority to collect samples under the provision of Section 38 of the said Act and further power of seizure has been vested in the Food Safety Officer in terms of the provisions contained in Section 126.96.36.199 wherein it is provided that where the Food Safety Officer is of the opinion or he has reason(s) to be recorded in writing that in the given situation it is not possible to comply with the provision of section 38(1).
(c) or the proviso to Section 38(1) for reasons like non availability of the Food Business Operator, the Food Safety Officer may seize the adulterant or food which is unsafe or sub-standard or mis-branded or containing extraneous matter, may seal the premises for investigation after taking a sample of such adulterant or food for analysis, however, in the present case, since the operator was available and she has signed on the proforma of taking sample there was no exigency as mentioned in Section 188.8.131.52 requiring sealing of the premises. In view of the aforesaid, by way of interim relief, it is directed that respondents No.4 and 5 shall open the seal of the business premises of the petitioner.
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven days by registered AD post, returnable in four weeks. Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE ms/–