Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:10548 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 33 of 2025 1 - M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited Western Clearing And Forwarding Agency, G.D. Logistic Park, Near Railway Bridge, Ring Road - 3, Block-C, Village - Giraudh, District - Raipur (C.G.) Pin 493111 2 - M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited (Tea Unit), Village - Asrauli, G.T. Road, Etah, District - Etah (U.P.), Pin 207001. versus ... Appellants 1 - Narendra Kumar Jain S/o Lt. Shri Sugandhchand Jain, M/s Laxmi Provision Stores, Dondilohara District Balod (C.G.) 2 - M/s Raicha Brothers, Station Road, Rajnandgaon District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Food Safety Officer, Food And Drug Administration, District Balod (C.G.) ... Respondents For appellants :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 04/03/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This misc. appeal under Section 71 (6) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 read with Rule 140 (6) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 has been preferred, challenging the order dated 16.08.2023 2 (Annexure A-1) passed by Food Safety Appellate Tribunal / District & Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) (henceforth, ‘District Judge, Balod’) whereby it has dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 alongwith appeal (unregistered) questioning the order dated 28.02.2023 (Annexure-A/2) passed by the Additional District Magistrate and Adjudicating Officer, District Balod passed in case No. 201904241200006/c -121 / 2018-19. 3. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that Food Safety Officer, Food & Drug Administration, District Balod (C.G.) had collected sample of “Red Label Brooke Bond Tea” from the shop of respondent No. 1 – Narendra Kumar Jain named & styled as “M/s. Laxmi Provision Stores”, Dondilohara situated at Balod, which was got tested / examined from Food Analyst, which reported it to be ‘mis-branded’, hence, complaint was filed by Food & Safety Officer against appellants & others bearing case No. 201904241200006/c -121 / 2018-19, in which, vide order dated 28.02.2023, Additional District Magistrate and Adjudicating Officer, Balod imposed penalty of various amounts against the appellants and respondents No. 1 & 2 under section 52 (1), 55 & 58 of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 (henceforth ‘the Act of 2006’). The appellants were penalized for payment of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.50,000/-, respectively, which was challenged by the appellants by filing appeal on 05.06.2023 alongwith application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing appeal, which was dismissed by the District Judge, Balod vide impugned order dated 16.08.2023 in unregistered appeal on the ground that appeal is barred by limitation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that as per impugned order, delay in filing the appeal was only 49 days and sufficient 3 cause was also shown by the appellants that Rajiv Singh, who was authorized to file appeal on behalf of the appellants, was ill, therefore, appeal could not be preferred within the period of limitation. He further submits that appellants came to know about passing of the order dated 28.02.2023 (Anneuxre A-1) on 12.4.2023, but since necessary approval could not have been taken in time and said Rajeev Singh, who was authorized to file appeal, was sick, therefore, delay of 49 days has been occurred, thus, the delay is bonafide, hence, it is prayed that impugned order may be set aside and District Judge, Balod may be directed to restore un-numbered appeal and after affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellant, appeal may be decided on merits in accordance with law. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that well reasoned order has been passed by District Judge and since there is huge delay in filing appeal and no sufficient cause has been shown. Order impugned does not suffer from perversity or illegality, hence, this appeal is liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. As per rule 3.3.1 of the The Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011, period of limitation to file appeal against order by Additional District Magistrate / Adjudicating Officer is ‘30 days’ from the date on which the copy of the order against which the appeal is filed, is received by the appellant. As per proviso attached to said Rule, further 30 days’ time may also be extended for filing appeal subject to satisfaction of the Court that there was sufficient cause for not filing appeal within first 30 days. 4 8. In the instant case, order dated 28.02.2023 was passed by Adjudicating officer / Additional District Magistrate, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) and appeal was said to be preferred on 6.7.2023 i.e. after 4 months & 8 days. Maximum period of filing appeal is 60 days, thus, actual period of delay is found to be 2 months & 8 days. But as per impugned order itself, certified copy of the order dated 28.02.2023 was received to the appellant on 12.04.2023, therefore, limitation will commence from 12.4.2023. Total period is 60 days, therefore, at the most appeal ought to have been filed by the appellant till 12.06.2023, which was filed by the appellant on 06.07.2023, thus, delay is only about 24- 25 days, therefore, it cannot be said that delay was caused by the appellant with an ulterior motive or with malafide intention. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy1 observed that the sufficient cause has to be construed liberally especially when the delay is not deliberate and mala fide. Paras 11 & 12 of the said decision are as under : 11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitation newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the Courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus 1 (1998) 7 SCC 123 5 founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. 12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the Court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari {AIR 1969 SC 575} and State of West Bengal Vs. Administrator, Howrah Municipality {AIR 1972 SC 749}.” 10. In B.S. Sheshagiri Setty and others Versus State of Karnataka and others 2 reported in (2016) 2 SCC 123, their Lordships of the Supreme Court has held that when what is at stake, is justice, then a technical or pedantic approach should not be adopted by the Courts to do justice when there is miscarriage of justice caused to a public litigant. It is apt to reproduce the following observations:- “28. If a statute does not prescribe the time limit for exercise of revisional power, it must be exercised within a reasonable time frame. In the instant case, it is evident that constant litigation has been carried on by the appellants, and therefore they cannot be accused of suddenly waking up after 13 years to claim their land. Further, in the context of limitation, it has been held by this Court in a catena of cases that when what is at stake is 2 (2016) 2 SCC 123 6 justice, then a technical or pedantic approach should not be adopted by the Courts to do justice when there is miscarriage of justice caused to a public litigant. ” 11. Having considered the facts, as has been stated hereinabove and further considering the principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in afore-cited cases, it is apparent that the delay occurred in filing the appeal is said to be only 24-25 days and the reasons is said to be illness of Rajeev Singh, who was authorized to file appeal, therefore, I feel inclined to allow the misc. appeal subject to imposition of cost. 12. Consequently, the instant misc. appeal is allowed. impugned order dated 16.08.2023 passed by Food Safety Appellate Tribunal / District & Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) in unregistered appeal (M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited & another vs. State of Chhattisgarh) is set aside. Accordingly, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation
Decision
of delay in filing the appeal is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to account of District Legal Service Authority, Balod by the appellant herein within a period of 30 days from restoration of appeal. District Judge, Balod is directed to restore the aforesaid appeal (unregistered ) to its original file for hearing and disposal on its own merits in accordance with law immediately after receiving copy of this order. 13. It is further observed that after restoration of unregistered appeal, District & Sessions Judge, Balod shall proceed further with the same in accordance with law. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.03.11 10:31:20 +0530 7