A.Y. Kogje, J.:— This group of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are filed for setting aside the order in Appeal made by the Food and Safety Appellate Tribunal, in the respective Appeals under the provisions of Food Safety and Standard Act 2006. Considering the similarity of the issues involved and the submissions made, all the three petitions are being taken up for joint hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.
2. The facts are narrated from Special Civil Application No. 18506/2017. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal, Gandhinagar dated 17.06.2017 in Appeal No. 76/2015 and the order dated 09.07.2014 in Adjudication Application No. 12/2014 passed by the Adjudicating Officer and Additional Resident Collector, Vadodara. By the impugned order, the order of the Additional Collector imposing fine of Rs. 25,000/- each on the petitioners has been confirmed.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are holding a License and are engged in the business of manufacturing of food products and milk products like ‘ghee’. During a surprise visit on 09.04.2012 at a Store in Vadodara, a sample of ‘Shradhdha Gaynu Ghee’ was sent for laboratory analysis and was found to be sub-standard. It is in this regard, the proceedings were undertaken and sanction for complaint was granted. After the procedure, a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each was imposed.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the proceedings initiated are vitiated on account of non-granting of sufficient opportunity of hearing and non-supply of complete set of documents.
5. It is submitted that sample of ghee was taken on 09.04.2012 and the report was not received within a period of 14 days, thereby depriving the petitioner of the valuable right to get the same re-tested. It is also submitted that the proceedings are vitiated as the case was not filed within a period of one year of taking of the sample.
6. As against this, learned Assistant Government Pleader has opposed the petition contending that the authorities have given concurrent finding of facts and there is conclusive evidence of the milk product ‘ghee’ being sub-standard and hence, imposing of fine was justifed. The technical objection raised by the petitioners are non-significant and has not caused any breach to the petitioners right.
7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the documents on record of the case. It appears that the petitioners are engaged in the business of manufacturing of milk products including ‘ghee’, which is the product in question. On 09.04.2012, a surprise visit was made by the respondent officers at one provision Store located at District Vadodara and had taken sample of a retail product ‘Shradhdha Gaynu Ghee’. The said sample was sent for laboratory testing and in the Analysis Report dated 19.04.2012, the sample was found to be sub-standard. A showcause notice was issued for breach of provisions of Section 3(1)(3), 6(1)(2)(ii) and 27(1) of the Food Safety and Standard Act. The authorities below on the basis of evidence have found that the minimum Reichert Value for test no. 4 should be 24.0. Instead, it is found at 19.10, which is substandard. Thus, according to the opinion of the Food Analyst, Rajkot, the stated edible article contains ‘adulterate’ as per Section(s) - 3(1)(ZX) and 3(1)(A) of the Food Standards and Safety (2006) act. Therefore, it was declared as substandard. The manufacturing firm has also committed the offence punishable under Section-51 of the Act by violating the provisions of Section(s)- 26(2)(5) and 27(1) of the Act by manufacturing and selling the stated product to the food business operator for getting it analyzed which has transpired from the papers of this case produced vide Reference-4. Therefore, a show-cause notice has been issued vide Reference-6 to remain present in person invariably on the day of hearing. Pursuant to that, respondent nos. 1 to 3 remained absent and Shri Vallabhbhai Savjibhai Vadodariya remained present at the time of hearing on behalf of respondent nos. 4 to 8 on 08/07/2014. At the time of hearing, they have accepted that they were not aware about the details and it has occurred erroneously.
8. The Appellate Authority while considering the submissions on behalf of the petitioners has recorded as under:—
“(8) Ld. Advocate Shri N.S. Wafi has stated in his written arguments that the provisions of Food Safety and Standard Rules-3(1)(6) read with Section-68(4) of the Food Safety and Standard (2006) act has been violated. This argument does not sustain that the offenders have not been given an opportunity of 30 days for filing their reply before the court of Learned Adjudicating Officer and Additional Residential Collector, Vadodara. Because, offender no. 5 Shri Vallabhbhai Savjibhai Vadodariya has admitted his mistake at the time of hearing before the Court of Learned Adjudicating Officer and Additional Residential Collector, Vadodara. Thus, when Offender no.-5 Shri Vallabhbhai Savjibhai Vadodariya has admitted his mistake, the benefit under aforesaid provisions of law cannot be granted. Further, Learned Advocate Shri N.S. Wafi has stated vide his written arguments that one fourth part of the sample has not been given by the complainant officer to the government accredited laboratory. The provision that, the Food Analyst In-charge of an accredited laboratory shall analyze samples of Ghee within 14 days, has been contravened. Though the opportunity of representation under Section-68(2) of the Food Safety and Standard (2006) Act has not been given, the respondents have been held guilty wrongfully and penalized. The benefit of aforesaid provisions of law can not be granted when Offender no. 5 Shri Vallabhbhai Savjibhai Vadodariya has admitted his mistake. Further, the Ld. Advocate for the applicants has also presented some judgments alongwith this appeal. These judgments, not being relevant to the facts of this case, cannot be made applicable here. As the Learned Adjudicating Officer has passed the order on the basis of admissions made by the applicants, the judgments presented by the applicants cannot be made applicable in this case.”
9. In view of the aforesaid admission where the petitioners have accepted their guilt, the technical contentions with regard to the opportunity cannot come to the rescue of the petitioners as the petitioners were given a full opportunity and material to contest at the relevant point of time which right the petitioners have waived by admitting their guilt in front of the adjudicating authority.
10. In the facts of this case therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere on the grounds mentioned in the petitions. The petitions deserve to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged.