C/SCA/16375/2012 JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.  16375 of 2012

 
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: 
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA : Sd/­
=======================================================

1  Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be  NO
allowed to see the judgment ?

2  To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO

3  Whether   their   Lordships   wish   to  see  the 

fair copy of the judgment ? NO

4  Whether this case involves a substantial 
question of law as to the interpretation 
of   the   Constitution   of   India   or   any  NO
order made thereunder ?

=======================================================
HINDUSTAN COCA­COLA BEVERAGES PVT LTD....Petitioner(s)
Versus
DG PATEL FOOD SAFETY OFFICER
AMC DIST. & 2....Respondent(s)
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR KS NANAVATI, Sr. Advocate FOR NANAVATI ASSOCIATES, 
ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MAULIN RAVAL for M/S RJ RAWAL ASSOC., ADVOCATE for 
the Respondent(s) No. 1 ­ 2
MS SHIVYA A DESAI for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ­ 2
MR VENUGOPAL PATEL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 3
=======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
 
Date : 26/02/2018

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The   present   petition   is   filed   by   the   petitioner 

under Articles 226 and 227 of the  Constitution of 

Page 1 of 16
 C/SCA/16375/2012 JUDGMENT

India  as   well   as   under   the   Foot   Safety   and 

Standards Act, 2006 and under the provision of the 

Food   Safety   and   Standards   Rules,   2011   for   the 

prayers   inter   alia   that   the   sample   drawn   on 

31.01.2012   may   be   sent   for   analysis   to   an 

Accredited   Laboratory   as   per   the   statutory 

provision   of   Section   41(1)(c)(iii)   and   also   for 

the interim relief as prayed for.

2. The   facts   of   the   case   briefly   stated   are   as 

follows:­

2.1 The petitioner is a Company registered under 

the   Companies   Act   in   the   business   of 

manufacturing   of   packaged   drinking   water, 

which   is   marketed   in   the   brand   name   of 

“KINLEY”.   It   is   the   case   of   the   petitioners 

that   the   respondent   no.1­authority   on 

31.01.2012   took   sample   of   “Kinley”   packaged 

drinking   water,   1   litre   from   one   Sweta   Pan 

Mandir   located   at   Odhav,   Ahmedabad.   The 

respondent   no.2  vide  letter  dated  15.03.2012 

informed   the   petitioner   that   the   sample   of 

food   article   i.e.   Packaged   Drinking   Water 

“Kinley”   taken   by   the   respondent   no.1   on 

31.01.2012   was   found   to   be   sub­standard   on 

Page 2 of 16
C/SCA/16375/2012 JUDGMENT

analysis   by   the   Food   Analyst.   It   is   also 

stated that if the petitioner desires to get 

the   sample   analyzed   by   Referral   Laboratory, 

the   petitioner   may   prefer   an   Appeal   under 

Section   46(4)   of   the   Foot   Safety   and 

Standards  Act,   2006  (hereinafter  referred  to 

as “FSSA”).

2.2 Therefore,   the   petitioner   requested   the 

respondent   no.1   to   send   fourth   part   of   the 

sample of Packaged Drinking Water “Kinley” to 

an   Accredited   Laboratory   for   analysis   in 

accordance   with  Section  47(1)(c)(iii)  of  the 

FSSA and the Rule 2.4.1 [10(iii)] of the Food 

Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 (hereinafter 

referred to as “FSSR”). It is stated that the 

petitioner   was   informed   that   the   sample   of 

Packaged   Drinking   Water   “Kinley”   could   be 

sent   to   Referral   Laboratory   and   the 

petitioner   may   submit   an   application   under 

Form VIII of FSSR along with demand draft of 

Rs.1,000/­   in   favour   of   the   authority   at 

FSSAI,   New   Delhi.   Therefore   by   letter   dated 

12.07.2012, the petitioner again requested to 

allow   fourth   part   of   sample   of   food   article 

Page 3 of 16
C/SCA/16375/2012 JUDGMENT

to   be   analyzed   by   Accredited   Laboratory   as 

provided   under   Section   47(1)(c)(iii)   of   the 

FSSA   read   with   Rule   2.4.1   [10(iii)]   of   the 

FSSR.   However   the   petitioner   though 

requested, no heed was paid by the respondent 

nos.1   and   2   and   they   only   insisted   for 

sending   the   article   to   Referral   Laboratory. 

It   is,   therefore,   contended   that   the 

petitioner is a Food Business Operator and he 

may  be   allowed   to  have   his   sample   tested   in 

exercise of statutory right and/or to exhaust 

the   remedy   and,   therefore,   the   present 

petition is filed.

2.3 Affidavit   in   reply   has   been   filed   on   behalf 

of   the   respondent   nos.1   and   2.   It   is 

contended   inter   alia   that   the   petitioner 

purchased   from   Sweta   Pan   Mandir,   Packaged 

Drinking   Water   “Kinley”   and   the   said   sample 

was submitted for analysis to Food Analyst as 

required   under   Article   2.3.1.   The   report   of 

the   Food   Analyst   dated   13.02.2012   was 

received   with   an   opinion   that   the   sample   is 

sub­standard   and   does   not   meet   with   the 

standard   of   Regulation   2.10.8   in   respect   of 

Page 4 of 16
C/SCA/16375/2012 JUDGMENT

Aerobic   Microbial   Count.   The   petitioner   was 

also   informed   that   if   he   desired,   he   can 

prefer   an   Appeal   under   Section   46(4)   of   the 

FSSA   within   30   days.   Therefore,   it   is 

contended   that   the   business   operator   was 

informed   about   sample   having   been   taken   on 

31.01.2012   as   required.   Therefore,   the   Food 

Business   Operator   is   given   in   writing   to 

submit   sample   for   analysis   under   Section   47 

of the FSSA to Accredited Laboratory and the 

Food Business Operator did not make any such 

application or make any such requisition. It 

is,   therefore,   contended   that   under   Section 

46(4)   of   the   FSSA,   an   Appeal   is   provided 

against the report of the Food Analyst before 

the   Designated   Officer,   who   can   refer   the 

matter   to   the   Referral   Laboratory   and, 

therefore,   the   contention   raised   about   the 

opportunity   for   reference   to   Accredited 

Laboratory   is   not   available   and   the   present 

petition may not be entertained.

2.4 Affidavit­in­reply   is   also   filed   by   the 

respondent   no.3.   It   has   been   contended   that 

no right of the petitioner has been violated 

Page 5 of 16
 C/SCA/16375/2012 JUDGMENT

because of the action or inaction on the part 

of   the   respondents.   It   is   also   stated   that 

the challenge to get analysis of fourth part 

of   the   sample   drawn   on   31.01.2012   with 

Accredited   Laboratory  in  accordance  with  the 

statutory   provision   of   Section   47(1)(c)(iii) 

of   the   FSSA   has   to   be   within   a   period   and 

there   is  no  provision  under  the   law  to   send 

fourth   part   of   the   sample   for   test   analysis 

to an Accredited Laboratory. It is therefore 

contended   that   after   the   report   is   received 

from   the   Analyst,   when   there   is   no   such 

provision,   the   contentions   are   misconceived. 

It   is   contended   that   under   Section   47(1)(c)

(iii)   of   the   FSSA,   only   report   from   the 

Referral  Laboratory  can  supersede  the  report 

of the Food Analyst.

3. Heard   learned   Senior   Counsel,   Shri   K.S.   Nanavati 

for   Nanavati   Associates   for   the   petitioner, 

learned   advocate,   Shri   Maulin   Raval   for   Rawal 

Associates   for   the   respondent   nos.1   and   2   and 

learned   AGP   Shri   Venugopal   Patel   for   the 

respondent no.3.

4. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Nanavati referred to 

Page 6 of 16
 C/SCA/16375/2012 JUDGMENT

the background of the facts and also communication 

dated   22.05.2012   received   from   the   office   of   the 

Commissioner   that   such   a   request   to   send   the 

sample   by   another   Accredited   Laboratory   is   not 

justified.   He   submitted   that   this   itself   is 

contrary to the statutory provision and the Rules 

giving   right   to   the   person   like   the   petitioner. 

Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Nanavati referred to 

the provision of the FSSA and also Rule 2.4.5 of 

the FSSR, which referred to,

“Food   business   operator’s   right   to   have 

the food analysed”.

5. Similarly, he referred to Rule 2.4.6 of the FSSR, 

which referred to,

“Appeal to the Designated Officer”.

6. Learned   Senior   Counsel,   Shri   Nanavati   also 

referred   to   the   Food   Safety   and   Standards 

(Laboratory and Sample Analysis) Regulations, 2011 

and submitted that the procedure of sending sample 

is   provided   including   Natural   Mineral   Water/ 

Packaged   Drinking   Water   and   the   quantity   is   of 

4000   ml.   in   three   minimum   original   sealed   packs. 

Learned   Senior   Counsel,   Shri   Nanavati   submitted 

that admittedly sample taken is only 1000 ml. and, 

Page 7 of 16
 C/SCA/16375/2012 JUDGMENT

therefore,   drawing   of   the   sample   itself   is 

contrary   to   the   statutory   provision   and, 

therefore,   fourth   sample   is   not   sent   inspite   of 

the   request   made   by   the   petitioner   to   any 

Accredited   Laboratory.   He   pointedly   referred   to 

the FSSR and submitted that as stated in letter at 

Annexure­III,   request   was   made   to   the   respondent 

no.1   that   fourth   part   of   the   sample   of   food 

article   may   be   sent   to   Accredited   Laboratory   and 

necessary   paper   was   also   forwarded   as   it   is 

evident from the correspondences placed on record. 

He submitted that letter was addressed by the Food 

Safety   Officer   that   if   the   petitioner   desires   to 

get the sample analyzed to a Referral Laboratory, 

he   can   make   an   application   in   Form   VIII   of   FSSA 

along   with   demand   draft   of   Rs.1,000/­   drawn   in 

favour   of   the   Account   Officer,   FSSAI,   New   Delhi. 

Learned   Senior   Counsel,   Shri   Nanavati   pointedly 

referred to the communication dated 12.07.2012 at 

Annexure­V   and   submitted   that   it   was   clearly 

stated   that   when   the   Food   Business   Operator 

desires   to   get   analyzed   fourth   sample   then,   the 

Designated   Officer   may   have   sample   verified   with 

the   Referral   Laboratory   and,   therefore,   there   is 

Page 8 of 16
 C/SCA/16375/2012 JUDGMENT

no   question   of   sending   or   referring   to   the 

Referral   Laboratory   and   as   this   right   has   been 

denied,   it   has   violated   the   rights   of   the 

petitioner   to   defend.   He,   therefore,   submitted 

that the present petition may be allowed.

7. Learned   advocate,   Shri   Raval   for   the   respondent 

nos.1   and   2   submitted   that   it   is   required   to   be 

considered   whether   there   is   any   mandate   by   the 

statute that the petitioner can claim as a matter 

of   right.   He   submitted   that   there   is   no   reason 

that   it   could   not   be   referred   to   the   Referral 

Laboratory. Learned advocate, Shri Raval submitted 

that Section 47(1)(c)(iii) provides,

“   .........   if   so   requested   by   the   food 

business operator”.

8. Learned advocate, Shri Raval submitted that there 

is   no   such   request   made   within   time   and, 

therefore, the grievance made is an afterthought. 

He submitted that if the petitioner wanted to have 

sample   tested   then,   it   would   have   been   within 

reasons period and, therefore, when the petitioner 

did not press at that stage and now is raising an 

issue   as   an   afterthought.   He   submitted   that   even 

in   reply   or   at   that   time,   when   the   sample   was 

Page 9 of 16
 C/SCA/16375/2012 JUDGMENT

taken, he has not expressed his desire to send the 

sample   to   the   Accredited   Laboratory.   Learned 

advocate, Shri Raval, therefore, submitted that it 

is calculated recourse taken by the petitioner by 

not   making   such   request   earlier   as   the   sample 

tested by Accredited Laboratory has conformed the 

report   of   the   Analyst,   which   would   have   been 

confirmed the report of the Analyst. He submitted 

that   therefore   now   at   this   stage,   the   prayer 

cannot   be   entertained.   Learned   advocate,   Shri 

Raval also referred  to the provision of the FSSA 

and   the   FSSR   and   referred   to   Section   40   of   the 

FSSA, which provides,

“Purchaser may have food analysed”.

9. Similarly,   he   referred   to   Section   43,   Chapter 

VIII, which referred to,

“Recognition   and   accreditation   of 

laboratories,   research   institutions   and 

referral food laboratory”.

10. Therefore   learned   advocate,   Shri   Raval   submitted 

that the petitioner was given option to send it to 

the Referral Laboratory. He, therefore, submitted 

that assuming that the report which the petitioner 

may have desired, was different from the report of 

Page 10 of 16
 C/SCA/16375/2012 JUDGMENT

the   Analyst,   in   that   case,   it   may   have   been 

referred   to   the   Referral   Laboratory.   Learned 

advocate, Shri Raval, therefore, submitted that as 

willingness   was   shown   that   the   sample   could   be 

tested   by   the   Referral   Laboratory,   no   grievance 

could be made by the petitioner. Learned advocate, 

Shri Raval submitted that the Legislature has not 

provided   for   sending   sample   after   the   prescribed 

period and when the petitioner has failed, now he 

cannot make any grievance, otherwise, it would be 

abuse   and   it   would   continue   such   request   for 

testing.

11. In   rejoinder,   learned   Senior   Counsel,   Shri 

Nanavati   submitted   that   the   grievance   is   made 

within a reasonable period of 30 days, therefore, 

it   is   misconceived   that   the   petitioner   did   not 

express  his desire for testing of the sample.  He 

pointedly referred to the provision of Section 47 

of the FSSA and submitted that it is the statutory 

right of the petitioner to get the sample analyzed 

and tested, which has been denied. Learned Senior 

Counsel,   Shri   Nanavati   submitted   that   the 

submission   that   even   when   the   report   of   the 

Accredited   Laboratory   was   different   from   the 

Page 11 of 16
 C/SCA/16375/2012 JUDGMENT

report   of   the   Analyst,   ultimately   it   could   have 

been   referred   to   the   Referral   Laboratory   and 

willingness   has   been   shown   to   send   it   to   the 

Referral   Laboratory   and,   therefore,   grievance   is 

not justified, is thoroughly misconceived. Learned 

Senior   Counsel,   Shri   Nanavati   referred   to   the 

provision   of   Section   27   of   the   FSSA,   which 

provides,

“Liability   of   Manufacturers,   packers, 

wholesalers, distributors and sellers”.

12. Learned   Senior   Counsel,   Shri   Nanavati   submitted 

that   Section   27(3)   of   the   FSSA   provides,   “The 

seller   shall   be   liable   under   this   Act,   for   any 

article   of   food,   which   is   ­­”,   under   the 

circumstances,   which   is   falling   short   of   any   of 

the ground. He, therefore, submitted that none of 

the   grounds   mentioned   would   have   anything   to   do 

with   the   liability   as   a   food   business   operator’s 

liability. He, therefore, submitted that as a food 

business operator, when the requirement of Section 

27(3) of the FSSA are not fulfilled that it is not 

misbranded,   it   is   not   sold   after   the   date   of 

expiry and no liability could be attached to the 

petitioner,   particularly   when   the   correspondence 

Page 12 of 16
 C/SCA/16375/2012 JUDGMENT

is   made   with   the   Company   and   not   with   the 

petitioner, who is seller.

13. In view of the rival submissions,  it is required 

to   be   considered   whether   the   present   petition 

deserves consideration.

14. First limb of the submission is with regard to the 

statutory right for sending the sample for testing 

by   an   Accredited   Laboratory.   The   provision   of 

Section   47   of   the   FSSA   read   with   FSSR   clearly 

provide   that   fourth   part   of   the   sample   could   be 

tested   at   the   instance   of   the   person   like 

petitioner   or   the   manufacturer.   The   application 

though may not have made strictly within a period 

of   60   days,   it   has   been   made   within   reasonable 

time and, therefore, there is no justification to 

deny   such   right   to   the   petitioner,   which   is   a 

statutory right. Law is well settled that when the 

statute provides a right in favour of a person to 

have   his   sample   tested   and   verified   by   another 

laboratory,   it   cannot   be   denied   as   otherwise,   it 

would amount to denial of opportunity to prove his 

case and, therefore, it would also be in violation 

of rules of natural justice. Though the submission 

have   been   made   by   learned   advocate,   Shri   Raval 

Page 13 of 16
 C/SCA/16375/2012 JUDGMENT

that   assuming   that   the   report,   which   could   have 

been made by the accredited laboratory, would have 

been contrary  to the report  of the Food Analyst, 

ultimately it would have been referred to Referral 

Laboratory   as   provided   statutorily.   The   emphasis 

is   also   given   on   the   fact   that   in   case   of 

difference   of   opinion,   ultimately   the   report   of 

the   Referral   Laboratory   would   be   final.   However 

fact   remains   that   though   the   respondents   were 

aware   about   statutory   provision   and   the 

communication by the petitioner that he desires to 

have his option  for getting  the sample tested  by 

Accredited   Laboratory,   did   not   provide 

opportunity. Similarly, when they were advised to 

file   an   Appeal   under   Section   46(4)   of   the   FSSA, 

the   petitioner   has   also   communicated   vide   letter 

dated   12.07.2012   at   Annexure­V   and   even   at   that 

stage, it could have been referred to the Referral 

Laboratory. In any case, the provision of Section 

27 of the FSSA, which referred to the Liability of 

Manufacturers,   packers,   wholesalers,   distributors 

and   sellers,   requires   closer   scrutiny.   The 

petitioner   is   a   Company   engaged   in   the 

manufacturing   and   sale   of   the   product   known   as 

Page 14 of 16
 C/SCA/16375/2012 JUDGMENT

“Kinley”   and,   therefore,   the   emphasis   made   by 

learned   advocate   to   Section   27(3)   of   the   FSSA 

referred   to   the   liability   of   the   seller   is 

misconceived as the petitioner is not only seller 

but   is   also   manufacturer   and,   therefore,   as   the 

sample   taken   from   a   particular   shop,   the   shop 

keeper or the trader may have such right but the 

petitioner   is   a   Company   and,   therefore,   emphasis 

on   Section   27(3)   of   the   FSSA   are   misconceived. 

However as stated above, when the statutory remedy 

is provided conferring a right on the person like 

the   petitioner,   it   cannot   be   denied   and   in   any 

case,   as   submitted   with   reference   to   the   sample 

procedure   referred   to   in   Regulation,   admittedly 

the   sample   is   taken   contrary   to   the   statutory 

regulation.   Therefore   the   submission   made   by 

learned Senior Counsel, Shri Nanavati that instead 

of   4000   ml.,   if   the   same   is   1000   ml.,   it   could 

have   been   found   difficult   for   the   respondent   for 

sending   it   to   Laboratory   and,   therefore,   such 

rights   are   denied.   It   is   in   this   circumstances, 

when   the   right   of   getting   sample   tested   by   the 

Referral   Laboratory   is   denied   to   the   petitioner, 

further action would not be justified. At the same 

Page 15 of 16
 C/SCA/16375/2012 JUDGMENT

time,   prayer   made   by   the   petition   for   sending 

fourth sample after so much time, may not have any 

feasibility and practically not possible. It is in 

this circumstances, the prayer for granting sample 

cannot be granted but at the same time, no action 

could be taken.

15. Therefore   in   the   facts   of   the   case,   the   interim 

relief, which was granted after the statement made 

before   the   coordinate   bench   on   21.01.2013,   which 

is   continued   till   date   that   no   step   shall   be 

taken,   has   to   be   allowed.   The   respondents   are 

restrained   from   taking   any   steps   pursuant   to   the 

report   of   the   Food   Analyst   qua   the   product   i.e. 

Packaged   Drinking   Water   “Kinley”   on   the   basis   of 

the report.

16. With   the   above   observation   and   directions,   the 

present petition stands allowed accordingly. Rule 

is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Sd/­
(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.)

Gautam

Page 16 of 16