Akshkuber Sortex Pvt.

Ltd
V/s State of Rajasthan through FSO

FORM X
(Refer Rule (i) of 3.3.1 (2))
FORM OF APPEAL
BEFORE THE FOOD SAFETY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
(JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN)
In the matter of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (34 of
2006)
In the matter of appeal against the order dated
30.10.2023 passed by Adjudicating Officer Cum
Additional District Magistrate, Bhilwara, Rajasthan in
FSSA Case No. 69/2023
APPEAL NO. __________ OF 2023

1) M/s Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd. through its nominee in

person Vinay Singhal S/o Nanak ram registered office at
Suzuki Enclave, Chittorgarh Road, near Ramdham, District
Bhilwara.
2) Vinay Singhal Son of Nanak Ram Singhal, registered office
at Suzuki Enclave, Chittorgarh Road, near Ramdham,
District Bhilwara.
.…. APPELLANT
VS
1) State Of Rajasthan Through The Commissioner- Food
Safety, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2) Sh. Nagarmal, Food Safety Officer, O/o The Chief Medical &
Health Officer, Churu (Rajasthan)
…. RESPONDENTS
For use in Appellate Tribunal’s Office
Date of presentation in the registry
Date of receipt by post
Registration No.
Signature
(Registrar)
 Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd
V/s State of Rajasthan through FSO

BEFORE THE FOOD SAFETY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

(JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN)

INDEX

S. No. EXHIBIT PARTICULARS Page No.

Particulars of online
registration of Appeal and A
Payment of fee
1 Memorandum of Appeal
Copy of Adjudication
Application, Form VA and
2 A
Food Analyst Report filed by
the Food Safety Officer
Copy of the impugned order
B
dated 19.04.2022
Affidavit in support of
5
documents

6 Vakalatnama
 Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd
V/s State of Rajasthan through FSO

MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL

1. Particulars of the Appellant

(i) Name of the Appellant:

1) M/s Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd. through its

Nominee in person Vinay Singhal S/o Nanak
Ram Singhal registered office at 69-70,
Suzuki Enclave, Chittorgarh Road, near
Ramdham, District Bhilwara.
2) Vinay Singhal Son of Nanak Ram Singhal,
registered office at 69-70, Suzuki Enclave,
Chittorgarh Road, near Ramdham, District
Bhilwara.

(ii) Address of the Appellant:

Appellant No.1- 69-70, Suzuki Enclave,

Chittorgarh Road, near
Ramdham, District
Bhilwara.
Appellant No.2 - Same as Above

(iii) Address for service of all notices:

Appellant No.1- 69-70, Suzuki Enclave,

Chittorgarh Road, near
Ramdham, District
Bhilwara.
Appellant No.2 - Same as Above
 Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd
V/s State of Rajasthan through FSO

(iv) Telephone / Fax No., Email address if any:

Counsel for Appellant Sh. Abhijeet Panchariya,
Advocate, Mobile no.9468518589

2. Particulars of the Respondents

(i) Name of the Respondent:

1. State of Rajasthan through the
Commissioner - Food Safety, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.

2. Sh. Manish Kumar Sharma, Food Safety

Officer in the office of Chief Medical and
Health officer Bhilwara.

(ii) Address of the Respondent:

1. For Respondent No. 1 – Swasthya Bhawan,
C-Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. For Respondent No. 2 – Office of Chief

Medical & Health Officer, Bhilwara
(Rajasthan).

(iii) Address for service of all notices:

1. For Respondent No. 1 – Swasthya Bhawan,
C-Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. For Respondent No. 2 – Office of Chief

Medical & Health Officer, Bhilwara
(Rajasthan).
(iv) Telephone / Fax No., Email address if any:
Not known.
 Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd
V/s State of Rajasthan through FSO

3. Particulars of the Performa Respondents

(v) Name of the Performa Respondent:

1. Dipesh Son of Prakash Chand Jain, Owner of

M/s Anshul Traders, Kachhi Basti, near Baba
Dham, Bhilwara.

(vi) Address of the Performa Respondent:

1. For Performa Respondent No. 1 – M/s
Anshul Traders, Kachhi Basti, near Baba
Dham, Bhilwara.

(vii) Address for service of all notices:

1. For Performa Respondent No. 1 – M/s
Anshul Traders, Kachhi Basti, near Baba
Dham, Bhilwara.

(viii) Telephone / Fax No., Email address if any:

Not known.

4. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal

The Appellants declares that the matter of appeal falls
within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal.

5. Limitation
The Appellants further declares that the appeal is filed
with delay of 25 days as prescribed in Rule 3.3.1(1)
because the Learned ADM has been pronounced the
order dated 30.1.2023 but typed and signed later
therefore the appellant applied for certified of order
 Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd
V/s State of Rajasthan through FSO

dated 30.10.2023 on 14.11.2023 and same was received

on 17.11.2023 therefore delay in filing appeal is
bonafide. It is in the interest of justice that appeal may
be heard and decided on merits.

6. Facts of the Case

i) That, the Food Safety Officer, in the Office of
Chief Medical and Health Officer Bhilwara-
Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as
“FSO”) visited M/s Anshul Traders, Kachhi Basti,
near Baba Dham, Bhilwara, on 24.03.2023 and
procured a sample of “Suji (Brand
Shantipurn)” in 1kgx4 packed packets
(hereinafter referred to as “Sample”) for
analysis and accordingly issued Form VA to
the Vendor-Performa respondent no.1.
Thereafter, the sample was sent to the Food
Analyst, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as
“FA”) for detailed analysis. The FA in its
report dated 31.03.2023 concluded/opinion
that the sample was Misbranded under
Section 3(1)(zf)(c)(i) of FSS Act, 2006 and
was in contravene of Regulation No.5(10)
(a) of Food Safety and Standards Act
(Packaging and Labeling) Regulation, 2011,
that, consequently, after obtaining sanction for
prosecution, the Respondent FSO initiated
adjudication proceedings in the Court of
Adjudication Officer cum Additional District
Magistrate, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as
 Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd
V/s State of Rajasthan through FSO

“AO”) against the Appellant for contravention of

Regulation of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
(Packaging and Labeling), Regulations, 2011.

In view thereof, the Appellants are prosecuted

for alleged violation of section 26(2)(ii) of FSSA and
the rules framed there under and punishable u/s –52
of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Copy of
Adjudication Application, Form VA and FA report are
annexed herewith in colly and marked as Exhibit –
A.

ii) That the Appellant filed their detailed reply

himself to the Prosecution petition before the
Adjudicating Officer, Bhilwara as per the
provisions of Section 68(2) of the Food Safety
and Standards Act, 2006 along with their
defense evidences in the support of their case,
before the Adjudicating Officer.

iii) Thereafter, the case was finally heard by Ld. A.O.

and vide impugned order dated 30.10.2023, Ld. A.O
held the Appellant is liable u/s- 52 of Food Safety
and Standards Act, 2006 and imposed penalty of Rs.
1,10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand) on Appellants and
directed them to deposit the amount. Copy of the
impugned order dated 30.10.2023 is annexed
hereto and marked as Exhibit-B.
 Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd
V/s State of Rajasthan through FSO

iv) That, being aggrieved by the impugned order

dated 30.10.2023 passed by the Adjudicating
Officer, Bhilwara in FSSA Case No.69/2023,
the Appellants are present this appeal before
this Hon’ble Tribunal for setting aside the
impugned order on the following amongst
other grounds which are set out herein below
which are without prejudice to each other:

GROUNDS

A) Because, the impugned order passed by the Learned

Adjudicating Officer is bad in law, invalid and vitiated
by error apparent on the facts of the record and
against the provisions of the Food Safety and
Standards Act, 2006 & also against Food Safety and
Standards Rules, 2011. Therefore, same is liable to be
quashed and set –aside.

B) Because, the impugned order was passed by the

Learned Adjudicating Officer doesn’t speak for itself
and totally unreasoned. Therefore, being unreasoned
and implausible the penalty made against the
present Appellants is illegal.

C) Because, the impugned order dated 30.10.2023 is

unreasonable as the learned Adjudicating Officer has
failed to examine and consider the submissions made
by the Appellants. The Learned Officer has vide a
non-speaking order imposed penalty on the
 Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd
V/s State of Rajasthan through FSO

Appellants without even considering and dealing

with all the contentions and submissions raised by
the Appellants in his Miscellaneous application.

D) That the impugned order dated 30.10.2023 not just

elaborates but also extrapolates the complaint filed
by the FSO, as the complaint could not stand on its
own legs, as the same was vague, unsubstantiated
and baseless. It does not provided any reason or
explanation as to why the food samples were alleged
to be “misbranded” even the best before of product is
given on the label of product and it is very clearly
mentioned that product is use within the three
month from the date of manufacturing then how can
appellants are misleading the consumer. Therefore
the order dated 30.10.2023 is liable to be quashed
and set aside.

E) Because, as per provisional of Food Safety Act where

the Designated Officer has power to give
improvement notices for such type offences as per
Section 32 of FSSA 2006, which reads as under:-

“32. Improvement Notices-(1) if the Designated

Officer has reasonable grounds for believing that any
food business operator has failed to comply with any
to which this section applies, he may, by a notice
served on that food business operator (in this act
referred to as an “improvement notices).
 Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd
V/s State of Rajasthan through FSO

So if the compliances of section 32 have been made

out against the Appellant which also save time and
money of the Government.

F) Because, the Additional District Magistrate Churu

without applying the Section 49 of Food Safety
Standard Act 2006, passed the order against the
Appellant.
49. General provision relating to penalty: While
adjudging the quantum of penalty under this chapter,
the Adjudicating Officer or the Tribunal, as the case
may be, shall have due regard to the following-
a. the amount of gain or unfair advantage,
wherever quantifiable, made as a result of
the contravention,
a. the amount of loss caused or likely to
cause to any person as a result of the
contravention,
b. the repetitive nature of the
contravention,
c. whether the contravention is without his
knowledge, and
d. Any other relevant factor.

G) Because, the sample have been collected by

Food Safety Officer who are not even
authorized to collect the sample for want of
qualifications as prescribed under the Food
Safety and Standard Act, 2006 and Rules and
Regulations made there under. Thus, even the
 Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd
V/s State of Rajasthan through FSO

collection of sample does not have any

sanctity in the eyes of law because the FSO
are not having the qualification, authority
and jurisdiction to act as such. In view of
above, the proceedings could not have been
initiated under Act, 2006.

H) Because, Hon’ble Division Bench at Principal

Seat, Jodhpur in its judgment and order dated
15.1.2020 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
12076/18 titled as Rajneesh Sharma and Ors.
V/s. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Had also held
in clear terms that the Food Safety Officers /
Inspectors must bear the qualifications as
specified Section 37 of Food Safety and
Standard Act, 2006. It clearly means
proceedings under the Act, 2006 cannot be
initiated by Food Safety Officers who are not
qualified in terms of the Act, 2006. In view of
this, the proceedings initiated by Food Safety
Officer were void ab initio making all the
consequential proceedings bad and
unsustainable in the eyes of law. That the
Hon’ble division bench of the high court at Jaipur in
DB. Special Appeal Writ had taken very serious note
regarding in ineligibility and lack of competency of
food safety officer who were performing the duties
under the FSSAI 2006 act as there were not even
competent to perform the duties for want of
requisites qualification as per rule 2.1.3 of the rules
 Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd
V/s State of Rajasthan through FSO

of 2011. Accordingly various directions were issued

by the Hon’ble division for ensuring compliance. For
ready reference Hon’ble court the relevant direction
are being reproduced hereunder and copy of the
order shall be kept ready for examination of Hon’ble
court at time of argument.

“Taking note of the fact that appointment of food safety

officers has not received required attention of the officials
of the state, we issue following direction

A. The chief secretary of the state of Rajasthan. Jaipur

shall ensure that the cadre rules for appointment to
the post of Food Safety Officer are approved and
notified by the State of Rajasthan within one month
from today
B. The chief secretary of the state shall draw tentative
schedule regarding
recruitment/appointment/promotion of food safety
offices.
C. The Food Safety Officers to be appointed shall have
requisite qualification as per rule 2.1.3 of the Rules of
2011.
D. Qualified Food Safety Officers shall be appointed
within three months from the date of framing and
approval of cadre rules by an independent agency i.e.
Rajasthan Public Service Commission or Subordinate
Services Board. Whichever may be applicable or
by an independent committee to be constituted by
the Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan.
 Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd
V/s State of Rajasthan through FSO

E. The Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan shall

approve and set into motion a time table specifying
the date when advertisement shall be issued, when
applications shall be invited from the eligible
candidates and the date when appointment letters
shall be issued.
We expect that to give effect to our above
directions, the State of Rajasthan shall scout for the
best talent, who is conversant with modern
techniques regarding manufacture and processing of
safe and wholesome food, and such officers to be
manufacture and processing of safe and wholesome
food, and such officers to be inducted shall be capable
of ensuring that unsafe, sub-standard, mis-branded
food is not sold in the State of Rajasthan and the
State is free from sale and import of adulterated
food.

We further hope that the Chief Secretary of the State

while intervening in the matter will ensure that
Laboratory

”Technician, Nurse Grade-II, Opthalmic Assistant,

MPW, LDC etc are not made Food Safety Officers
through back door.”

Thus it is evident that there were serious lapses with

regard to appoint went and performance of duties of
food safety officer who were not as per the criteria
laid down in the food safety act and rules made there
under. From this it is evident that the food safety
officers were not even eligible and competent to
 Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd
V/s State of Rajasthan through FSO

perform the duties making the proceedings initiated

by such food safety officers void ab initio and nullity
in the eyes of law.

I) Because, from joint reading of pronouncements and

directions passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench it is
very clear that the food inspectors who lifted the
samples were not even competent in law to
performed the duties of Food Safety Officer for want
of eligibility requirements as contained in Rule 2.1.3
of Rules, 2011. Therefore, the proceedings initiated
against appellant are bad in eyes of law and same
is without legal authority or sanction. Due to this
even the consequential proceedings are not tenable
in the eyes of law.

J) Because, in view of the aforesaid facts it can safely

be inferred that the impugned order passed by the
Adjudicating Officer is not accordance with law as
reasonable and fair opportunity of hearing which is
mandatory under sub-section(2) of Section 68 of
FSSA Act was not afforded to the Appellant. No
enquiry was made before recording a finding that the
Appellant has committed contravention of the
provisions of the FSSA Act and Rules and Regulation
made thereunder, and therefore, order of the Ld.
Adjudicating Officer deserves to be set aside.

K) That the Appellant craves leave to submit other

grounds at the time arguments.
 Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd
V/s State of Rajasthan through FSO

6) Relief (s) sought

In view of the facts mentioned in paragraph 5 and the

grounds on which the impugned order is challenged, the
Appellant prays for the following relief (s);

i) That, this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to admit the

Appeal and call for the records pertaining to FSSA
Case No. 69/2023 from the Court of the Learned
Adjudicating Officer, Bhilwara;

ii) That, this Hon’ble Tribunal after examining the

records be pleased to quash / set aside the
impugned order dated 30.10.2023 against the
Appellants passed by the Learned Adjudicating
Officer, Bhilwara in FSSA Case No. 69/2023;

iii) Any further and other reliefs as this Hon’ble

Tribunal deem fit and proper considering the facts
and circumstances of the case;

7) Interim relief (s) sought (if prayed for)

Pending the final decision in the appeal, the Appellant

seek the following interim relief (s).

That, pending the hearing and final disposal of the

Appeal, this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to stay the
impugned order dated 30.10.2023 and all consequent
proceedings thereto as against the Appellants passed by
 Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd
V/s State of Rajasthan through FSO

the Learned Adjudicating Officer, Bhilwara in FSSA Case

No. 69/2023 for the following reasons;

i) That, the Appellants have a good case and have

every chance to succeed in the appeal.

ii) That, if the impugned order is not stayed the

Appellants will suffer irreparable loss and injury
as because as per the impugned order if the
penalty is not paid within 30 days from the date of
impugned order, proceedings under Section 96 of
FSSA shall be initiated and the license shall be
suspended till the penalty is paid.

iii) For that, the sanction for prosecution by the

designated Officer suffers from non – application
of mind on the part of the designated officer and
as such the impugned order is liable to be set
aside by this Hon’ble Tribunal.

iv) That, the balance of convenience lies in staying the

impugned order tills the decision in the present
appeal by this Hon’ble Tribunal.

v) That to secure the ends of justice the impugned

order is liable to be stayed by the Hon’ble
Tribunal.
8) Matters not pending with any other Court
The Appellants further declares that the matter
regarding which this appeal is not pending before any
Court of law or any other authority or any other
Tribunal.
 Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd
V/s State of Rajasthan through FSO

9) Particulars of fee paid

(i) Amount of fee paid : - As per particulars of
online Appeal Registration

(ii) Name of the bank on which the Demand Draft is

drawn – NA

(iii) Demand draft No. and date – NA

10) Details of Index

An index containing the details of the documents relied
upon is enclosed.

11) List of enclosures

 Exhibit A - Copy of Adjudication Application, Form
VA and FA Report filed by the Food Safety Officer
 Exhibit C – Copy of the impugned order dated
30.10.2023
 Vakalatnama
Signature of the Appellants

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

Abhijeet Panchariya
Advocates
 Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd
V/s State of Rajasthan through FSO

VERIFICATION

I, Vinay Singhal S/o Nanak Ram, aged about 40 years,

Nominee I person for M/s Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd.
registered office at 69-70, Suzuki Enclave, Chittorgarh
Road near Ram Dham, District Bhilwara, being Appellant
do hereby verify that the contents of paragraphs of the
above Appeal are true to my personal knowledge and
belief and that I have not suppressed any material fact.

Place: Jaipur Signature of the Appellant

(Vinay Singhal)
 Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd
V/s State of Rajasthan through FSO

BEFORE THE FOOD SAFETY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

(RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR)
APPEAL NO. /2023

Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd

Versus

State of Raj. & Anr.

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF DOCUMENTS

I, Vinay Singhal S/o Nanak Ram, aged about 40 years,
Nominee I person for M/s Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd. registered
office at 69-70, Suzuki Enclave, Chittorgarh Road near Ram
Dham, District Bhilwara, (Rajasthan), solemnly affirm and
state on oath as under:-

1. That, I am of the Appellant in present case and I am

fully acquainted with the facts and circumstances of
the case.

2. That, the documents mentioned and annexed to the

Appeal are true and correct copy to the best of my
knowledge and belief.

Date:

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION

I, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the

contents of the above affidavit are true and correct,
nothing has been concealed and no part of it is false. MAY
GOD HELP ME.

DEPONENT
 Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd
V/s State of Rajasthan through FSO

BEFORE THE FOOD SAFETY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

(JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN)

Misc. Application NO. __________ OF 2023

IN
APPEAL NO. __________ OF 2023

1) M/s Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd. through its nominee in

person Vinay Singhal S/o Nanak ram registered office at
Suzuki Enclave, Chittorgarh Road, near Ramdham, District
Bhilwara.
2) Vinay Singhal Son of Nanak Ram Singhal, registered office
at Suzuki Enclave, Chittorgarh Road, near Ramdham,
District Bhilwara.
.…. APPELLANT
VS
3) State Of Rajasthan Through The Commissioner- Food
Safety, Rajasthan, Jaipur
4) Sh. Nagarmal, Food Safety Officer, O/o The Chief Medical &
Health Officer, Churu (Rajasthan)
…. RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION UNDER RULE 3.3.1 (1) OF THE FOOD

SAFETY AND STANDARDS ACT 2006 FOR CONDONING
THE DELAY CAUSED IN FILING THE ABOVE
MENTIONED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED FOOD
SAFETY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL.
The humble appellant submitting the present application as
under:-
1. That the Appellants have filed the above mentioned appeal
before this food safety tribunal and the facts of the appeal
may kindly be treated as part of this application under Rule
3.3.1(1) of Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011.
 Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd
V/s State of Rajasthan through FSO

2. The Appellant further declares that the appeal is within the

limitation as prescribed in Rule 3.3.1(1). The Appellants
further declares that the appeal is filled with delay of 25
days as prescribed in Rule 3.3.1(1) because the Learned
ADM has been pronounced the order dated 30.1.2023 but
typed and signed later therefore when the order is ready
appellant immediately applied for certified of order dated
30.10.2023 on 14.11.2023 and same was received on
17.11.2023 therefore delay in filing appeal is bonafide. It
is in the interest of justice that appeal may be heard and
decided on merits.

3. That the delay that has arisen in filing this special appeal is
unintentional and it is in the interest of justice that same may
be condoned and the matter may be heard and decided on
merits.

4. That, the delay caused, if any, in filing the appeal is bonafide

because of the above reason.

5. That since the valuable rights of the appellant are involved in

the present appeal, therefore, this application may kindly be
allowed and the appeal filed by the appellant may kindly be
heard on its merits in the interest of justice.

6. That the other grounds in support of the application will be

urged at the time of final arguments of the application.

Prayer

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this

application under Rule 3.3.1(1) of Food Safety and Standards
Rules, 2011 may Kindly be accepted and allowed and the delay,
if any, in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned in the interest
of justice.
 Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd
V/s State of Rajasthan through FSO

Humble Appellant

Abhijeet Panchariya
Counsel for the Appellant
 Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd
V/s State of Rajasthan through FSO

BEFORE THE FOOD SAFETY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

(RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR)

MISC. APPLICATION NO. _______/2023

IN
APPEAL NO. /2023
Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd
Versus
State of Raj. & Anr.
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION

I, Vinay Singhal S/o Nanak Ram, aged about 40 years,

Nominee I person for M/s Akshkuber Sortex Pvt. Ltd.
registered office at 69-70, Suzuki Enclave, Chittorgarh Road
near Ram Dham, District Bhilwara, (Rajasthan), solemnly
affirm and state on oath as under:-

1. That, I am one of the Appellant in present case and I

am fully acquainted with the facts and circumstances
of the case.
2. The annexed Application has been drafted as per my
instruction by my counsel. The contents of appeal
have been read by me and I have understood the same.
3. The contents of the application are true and correct to
my personal knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION
I, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the
contents of the above affidavit are true and correct, nothing
has been concealed and no part of it is false. MAY GOD
HELP ME.

DEPONENT