Final Order 26

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: FSAT no. 14/2022
Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT)
	Page no. 1 of 11
IN THE COURT OF SH. PITAMBER DUTT :
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER,
FOOD SAFETY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI.
FSAT NO. 14/2022
CNR No. DLND01-006733-2022
1. Sh. Nikhil Asrani
S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar & Co. (Impex) Pvt. Ltd.
A-17, Sonu Tower, IInd Floor,
Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Commercial Complex,
Delhi – 110009
R/o B-3/303, 19 Rajpur Road,
Civil Lines, Delhi – 110054.
2. M/s Suresh Kumar & Co. (Impex) Pvt. Ltd.
A-17, Sonu Tower, IInd Floor,
Dr. Mukherjee Nagar Commercial Complex,
Delhi – 110009
Alternate Address
M/s Suresh Kumar & Co. (Impex) Pvt. Ltd.
Khasra No. 1092, First Floor,
Pole No. 215,
Bhalswa Village, Delhi – 110033.
3. Sh. Baldev Raj
S/o Late Sh. Chaman Lal
M/s Indeer Stores
INA Market, New Delhi
R/o B-55, B.K. Dutt Colony,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110003. .........Appellants
Versus
State Through FSO
Food Safety Officer, Dept. of Food Safety,
Government of NCT of Delhi
-- 1 of 11 --
FSAT no. 14/2022
Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT)
	Page no. 2 of 11
8th Floor, Bhawan, Connaught Place,
New Delhi – 1
2. Sh. Bal Mukund
Food Safety Officer,
Department of Food Safety
Government of NCT of Delhi,
8th Floor, Mayur Bhawan,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi – 110001. ............Respondent
Date of Institution : 08.08.2022
Arguments heard on : 06.04.2026
Date of Judgment : 20.04.2026
Appearances:-
Sh. Kapil Sharma, Sh. A.K. Shrivastav and Sh. Jishnu Bakshi, Ld. Counsels for
the appellants.
Sh. Birender Singh Dagar, Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for the State / FSO.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the appeal filed by the appellants
against impugned order dated 29.06.2022, passed by the Adjudication
Officer / ADM (South-East), Delhi under Rule 3.1.1.(3) of the Food
Safety & Standards Rules, 2011. The brief facts necessitated in filing of
the present appeal are given as under:-
2. The appellants have averred that on 18.05.2017, Sh. Bal Mukund,
Food Safety Officer (FSO), took sample of “Ragu Cheesy Classic
Alfredo” from M/s Inder Store, Shop No. 40, INA Market, New Delhi -
110023, for analysis under the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006 and
after analysis, declared the said sample to be sub-standard as acetic acid
-- 2 of 11 --
FSAT no. 14/2022
Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT)
	Page no. 3 of 11
was less than the prescribed limit of 1.0% and also reported the same to
be misbranded for violation of Regulation no. 2.2.1.4 and 2.3.2 (a) of the
Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labeling) Regulation 2011,
by the Food Analyst, Government Food Laboratory, Delhi, vide Food
Analyst Report no. FSS/549/2017 dated 02.06.2017. Consequently, a
complaint was filed by the FSO against the appellant and others, before
the Ld. Adjudicating Officer, ADM (South-East), Delhi and after
considering the reply and rejoinder as well as the submissions made by
both the parties, the A.O. / ADM, vide impugned order dated 29.06.2022,
imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- on appellants no. 3 and penalty of
Rs.2,00,000/- each on appellants no. 1 and 2. Feeling aggrieved by the
impugned order dated 29.06.2022, the present appeal has been filed for
adjudication.
3. Notice of the appeal was sent to the Food Safety Officer, record of
the Adjudicating Officer was also called for.
4. Sh. A.K. Shrivastav, Ld. Counsel for the appellants has contended
that the impugned order has been passed by the A.O. / ADM in a
mechanical manner, without appreciating and distinguishing the
submissions / objections and the documents so relied by the appellants in
their reply / objections. He further contended that the sample of “Ragu
Cheesy Classic Alfredo” was not at all sub-standard as same is a
proprietary food, of which standards are not prescribed under the
provisions of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and
Food Additives Regulations, 2011) but are prescribed under item no. 2.12
of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standard and Food
Additives) Regulations, 2011. He further contended that Food Analyst
analyzed the impugned sample of Ragu Cheesy Classic Alfredo Sauce as
-- 3 of 11 --
FSAT no. 14/2022
Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT)
	Page no. 4 of 11
per specifications of culinary paste / fruit and vegetable sauce as
prescribed under item no. 2.3.28 of the regulations and opined the same
to be sub-standard, though same should have been analyzed as per
standards of proprietary food. He further contended that the impugned
sample of Ragu Cheesy Classic Alfredo Sauce was not in violation of of
regulation 2.3.2(a) of the Packaging and Labelling Regulations, 2011 as
same was bearing all mandatory pre-printed information on the principal
display panel. He further contended that the respondent / FSO has failed
to bring on record any document to show that the Food Analyst
Laboratory, Delhi was recognized by the Food Authority and accredited
by NABL at the relevant time. He further contended that merely because
of minor labeling defects on the impugned sample commodity, the
appellants could not have gained or would have caused loss to the
consumers. He prayed that appeal may be allowed and impugned order
dated 29.06.2022 may be set aside.
5. Sh. Birender Singh Dagar, Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for the
State / FSO has contended that the impugned order has been passed by
the FSO after considering the reply filed by the appellants and material
available on record, as per law. He further contended that the sample
taken was opined to be of ‘Sub-Standard’ and ‘Misbranded’ by the Food
Analyst vide his report no. FSS/549/2017 dated 02.06.2017. He further
contended that copy of Food Analyst Report was sent to FBO but none
appeared before the Designated Officer, South-East District, to file an
appeal against the report of the Food Analyst. He prayed that appeal may
be dismissed.
6. I have heard Ld. counsel for the appellants, Ld. counsel for the
respondents, perused the appeal, impugned order as well as record. A
-- 4 of 11 --
FSAT no. 14/2022
Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT)
	Page no. 5 of 11
perusal of the above shows that Food Safety Officer conducted a raid on
18.05.2017 and sample of Ragu Cheesy Classic Alfredo Sauce was taken,
which was found ‘Sub-Standard’ and ‘Misbranded’ after examination,
therefore, a complaint was submitted by the FSO against the appellant for
violation of provisions of Section 23 (1), Section 26 (1) (ii) & 26 (2) (ii),
Section 27 (1) and Section 27 (2) (c) Read with Section 3 (1) (zf) & 3 (1)
(zx) (c) (i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and violated
Regulation no. 2.2.1.4, 2.3.2 (a) of the Food Safety and Standards
(Packaging & Labeling) Regulations, 2011, punishable under Section 51
and 52 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
7. Pursuant to the said complaint, notice was sent to the appellants,
who submitted their detailed reply.
8. Pursuant to the said complaint, notice was sent to the appellants,
who submitted their detailed reply.
9. The Adjudicating Officer thereafter, passed the impugned order
dated 29.06.2022, holding the appellants guilty for commission of
offences and imposed penalty of fine as mentioned in para 3 (i) to (iv) of
the order.
10. The appellants have claimed that impugned order dated 29.06.2022
has been passed without considering the various grounds taken by them
in their reply to complaint of Food Safety Officer.
11. A perusal of record shows that appellants challenged the complaint
filed by Food Safety Officer on various grounds, which they have taken
in their reply. As per the appellants, the sample of “Ragu Cheesy Classic
-- 5 of 11 --
FSAT no. 14/2022
Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT)
	Page no. 6 of 11
Alfredo” was not at all sub-standard as same is a proprietary food, of
which standards are not prescribed under the provisions of Food Safety
and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives Regulations,
2011) but are prescribed under item no. 2.12 of the Food Safety and
Standards (Food Products Standard and Food Additives) Regulations,
2011. They further claimed that Food Analyst analyzed the impugned
sample of Ragu Cheesy Classic Alfredo Sauce as per specifications of
culinary paste / fruit and vegetable sauce as prescribed under item no.
2.3.28 of the regulations and opined the same to be sub-standard, though
same should have been analyzed as per standards of proprietary food.
They further claimed that impugned sample of Ragu Cheesy Classic
Alfredo Sauce was bearing all mandatory pre-printed information on the
principal display panel, as per regulation 2.3.2(a) of the Packaging and
Labelling Regulations, 2011. They also claimed that the respondent / FSO
has failed to bring on record any document to show that the Food Analyst
Laboratory, Delhi was recognized by the Food Authority and accredited
by NABL at the relevant time.
12. The appellants had thus taken various pleas against the
maintainability of the complaint, which goes to the root of the matter.
However, surprisingly the Adjudicating Officer has not dealt with any of
such pleas raised by the appellants in their reply and has passed the
impugned order without assigning any reason as to why and on what
basis, he discarded the plea taken by the appellants in their reply.
13. The right to be heard is one of the fundamental principles of
natural justice, which is to be followed by all the Administrative
Authorities and Quasi Judicial Authorities. The basic fundamental
principle of natural justice is that the person against whom an order is
-- 6 of 11 --
FSAT no. 14/2022
Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT)
	Page no. 7 of 11
passed must know as to why and on what basis the said order has been
passed.
14. The order must be a speaking one, giving reasons
for reaching to the conclusion and must not be cryptic in
nature.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
“M/s Kranti Asso. Pvt.
Ltd. & Anr. Vs Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors.”, Civil Appeal, arising out
of SLP (Civil) no. 20428 of 2007, date of decision 08.09.2010, after
analyzing various judgments on necessity of giving reason by a body or
Authority in support of his judgment, summarized various pleas and
observed in para 51, as under:-
51. Summarizing the above
discussion, this Court holds:
a. In India the judicial trend
has always been to record
reasons, even in administrative
decisions, if such decisions
affect anyone prejudicially.
b. A quasi-judicial authority
must record reasons in support
of its conclusions.
c. Insistence on recording of
reasons is meant to serve the
wider principle of justice that
justice must not only be done it
must also appear to be done as
well.
d. Recording of reasons also
operates as a valid restraint on
any possible arbitrary exercise
of judicial and quasi-judicial or
even administrative power.
-- 7 of 11 --
FSAT no. 14/2022
Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT)
	Page no. 8 of 11
e. Reasons reassure that
discretion has been exercised
by the decision maker on
relevant grounds and by
disregarding
	extraneous
considerations.
f. Reasons have virtually
become as indispensable a
component of a decision
making process as observing
principles of natural justice by
judicial, quasi-judicial and
even by administrative bodies.
g. Reasons facilitate the
process of judicial review by
superior Courts.
h. The ongoing judicial trend
in all countries committed to
rule of law and constitutional
governance is in favour of
reasoned decisions based on
relevant facts. This is virtually
the life blood of judicial
decision making justifying the
principle that reason is the soul
of justice.
i. Judicial or even quasi-
judicial opinions these days
can be as different as the
judges and authorities who
deliver them. All these
decisions serve one common
purpose which is to
demonstrate by reason that the
relevant factors have been
objectively considered. This is
important for sustaining the
litigants' faith in the justice
delivery system.
j. Insistence on reason is a
requirement for both judicial
accountability
	and
transparency.
-- 8 of 11 --
FSAT no. 14/2022
Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT)
	Page no. 9 of 11
k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial
authority is not candid enough
about his/her decision making
process then it is impossible to
know whether the person
deciding is faithful to the
doctrine of precedent or to
principles of incrementalism.
l. Reasons in support of
decisions must be cogent, clear
and succinct. A pretence of
reasons or `rubber-stamp
reasons' is not to be equated
with a valid decision making
process.
m. It cannot be doubted that
transparency is the sine qua
non of restraint on abuse of
judicial powers. Transparency
in decision making not only
makes the judges and decision
makers less prone to errors but
also makes them subject to
broader scrutiny. (See David
Shapiro in Defence of Judicial
Candor (1987) 100 Harward
Law Review 731-737).
n. Since the requirement to
record reasons emanates from
the broad doctrine of fairness
in decision making, the said
requirement is now virtually a
component of human rights
and was considered part of
Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See
(1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562
para 29 and Anya vs.
University of Oxford, 2001
EWCA Civ 405, wherein the
Court referred to Article 6 of
European Convention of
Human Rights which requires,
"adequate and intelligent
reasons must be given for
judicial decisions".
-- 9 of 11 --
FSAT no. 14/2022
Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT)
	Page no. 10 of 11
o. In all common law
jurisdictions judgments play a
vital role in setting up
precedents for the future.
Therefore, for development of
law, requirement of giving
reasons for the decision is of
the essence and is virtually a
part of "Due Process".
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in case titled
Jaspal Singh
Jolly Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi, reported as 125 (2005) DLT 592,
has held that:-
“Noting the decision of the
Supreme Court as Erusia
Equipments & Chemical Ltd.
Vs State of West Bengal,
(1975) 1 SCC 70: AIR 1975
SC 266 (at P. 269); 106 (2003)
DLT 573, Mekaster Trading
Corporation Vs Union of India;
and (1990) 4 SCC 594, S.N.
Mukherjee Vs Union of India,
I had held that the aforesaid
decision established the legal
proposition that orders which
are subject to judicial review
must be in compliance with the
principle of natural justice,
namely (a) proper hearing, (b)
decision by an unbiased mind;
(c) taking into consideration all
the relevant factors and
excluding the irrelevant
factors; and (d) reasons to be
recorded.
Needless to state, reasons
enable the superior Court to
effectively
	exercise
supervisory
	jurisdiction.
Additionally, when reasons are
stated, the persons affected
knows the mind against him. A
decision may be right, but not
sound. Such a decision leaves a
grievance in the mind of the
person affected that he was not
-- 10 of 11 --
FSAT no. 14/2022
Nikhil Asrani & Ors Vs State (Through FSO FSAT)
	Page no. 11 of 11
told why the decision was
taken.”
17. The adjudicating officer while passing the order was thus required
to assign reason that on what basis, he discarded the pleas taken by the
appellant. However, the adjudicating officer has failed to assign any
reason for discarding the plea taken by the appellant in their reply and has
passed the impugned order without giving any reason, therefore, said
order is not sustainable in law.
18. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the appeal filed by
the appellants against the impugned order dated 29.06.2022, passed by
the Adjudicating Officer / ADM (South-East), is allowed. The impugned
order dated 29.06.2022 is set aside. Matter is remanded back to the
Adjudicating Officer / ADM (South-East) with the directions to hear the
parties afresh and pass a reasoned order after dealing with all the pleas
taken by the appellants in their reply and supplementary reply.
19. The record of the respondent be send back along with copy of this
order. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court
Today i.e. on 20.04.2026
(PITAMBER DUTT)
Principal District & Sessions Judge,
New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts
New Delhi.
-- 11 of 11 --