KONDIRAM VITTHALRAO GADEKAR v. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND DRUGS ADMINISTRATION, PARBHANI AND ANOTHER
Case Details
1 crwp 235.22.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 988 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.235 OF 2022 KONDIRAM VITTHALRAO GADEKAR VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND DRUGS ADMINISTRATION, PARBHANI AND ANOTHER ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Jadhavar Aashish T APP for Respondents : Mr. S W Munde ... CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. Dated : December 15, 2022 … PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that, his shop is sealed by the authorities on 3.2.2020 pursuant to lodging of the
Legal Reasoning
FIR under the provisions of sections 272, 273 of the IPC and under section 26(2)(iv) and 27(3)(d), 27(3)(E) and section 30(2)(a) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The petitioner states that, he has a valid license to run the business of dairy as he runs a confectionery store. 2. Learned Advocate submits that he had approached this Court by fling criminal writ petition no.601 of 2020 aaa/- 2 crwp 235.22.odt for de-sealing of the shop which is sealed by the authorities. This Court was pleased to issue notices to respondent. In the order dated 27.8.2022 this Court observed that “in terms of the order dated 10.8.2022 the petitioner-original accused has unlocked the shop and taken away the goods and grocery items of perishable nature from the shop and further observed that the petitioner is at liberty to fle an application before the trial court seeking de-sealing of the shop after fling of the charge-sheet by keeping all the points open.” Said writ petition was not considered on merits. 3. The prosecution fled charge-sheet on 17.6.2021. In view of the fling of the charge-sheet, petitioner again fled an application in the trial court seeking relief of de- sealing of the shop/premises. 4. Prosecution fled it’s say. Ultimately, by order dated 19.1.2022 the application came to be rejected. Only reason assigned while passing the order is that, if the shop is de-sealed, there is every possibility of the petitioner carrying out similar activities and possibility aaa/- 3 crwp 235.22.odt of repeating the same offence cannot be ruled out. The petitioner submits that, now it is more than a year that the shop is closed. Petitioner has produced on record a license to show that he has a valid license to run the shop. He says that there are no criminal antecedents and for the frst time he has been implicated in this kind of offence. He submits that his shop is the only income source for his livelihood. He is required to pay the rent to the land-lord and since the shop is not de-sealed he is facing diffculties. 5. Heard the learned APP for the State. Affdavit is fled opposing the petition. He pointed out that the Food Safety Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, Maharashtra State has issued a circular dated 6.4.2017 under section 3(1)(Z)(I). Defnition of Godown/premises is given which include any shop, stall, hotel, restaurant, airline services and food canteen, place or vehicle or vessel where any article of food is sold or manufactured or stored for sale. In the said circular, it is mentioned that where such food items aaa/- 4 crwp 235.22.odt are carried, the only such material or the goods are confscated and the vehicle is not confscated. It is also further taken a note that such places are also again used for the same purpose. It is, therefore, expected from the authorities that, as per section 41 (1)(2) of the said Act that, wherein such goods are found being transported in the vehicle, then such vehicles shall be seized where such goods are stored in such cases, shops or go-downs be sealed. However, it is not clarifed in the circular as to for what period this action be taken. It is the submissions of the learned APP that, it is thus necessary for the machinery/authority to take action in the public interest and, therefore, this petition be dismissed. 6. It is pointed out by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that though a circular is issued asking the authorities to take action, however, it is not made clear that as to for which period shops or godown are to be sealed. Such preventive actions cannot be taken for indefnite period. In this case also now two years and aaa/- 5 crwp 235.22.odt four months period has lapsed and still neither the trial is over nor any order of de-sealing is passed. 7. Considering the rival submissions, this Court fnds that though the authorities have power to seal the shops, Go-downs or confscate the vehicles, in which goods which are not in conformity to the standard as prescribed under the acts; or the goods as carried/ transported though can be confscated or sealed, such action cannot be for indefnite period. Though, reasonable period is not given. It needs to be considered that such actions are expected to be taken for a reasonable period and not for indefnite period. It would be necessary to put reasonable conditions upon the petitioner that he shall not use the said godown for any such activities in contravention with the act or any other act. In this case, it is more than two years and 10 months that the shop of the petitioner is sealed. It would be in the interest of justice to direct the authorities i.e. respondent nos.1 and 2 to de-seal the shop i.e. the property/Godown of the petitioner aaa/- 6 crwp 235.22.odt no.42/3-4 situated within the Municipal Council limits of Gangakhed, which is sealed in connection with the offence registered with Gangakhed police station, District Parbhani bearing No.0042 dated 3.2.2020 on the basis of the FIR lodged by respondent no.1 Arun Maroti Tammadwar, Food Safety Offcer, Food and Drugs Department. The petitioner shall fle an undertaking within a period of one week in the offce of respondent no.1 to the effect that he shall not use said godown for any other purpose other than for which he is having the license to use the said godown. Writ Petition
Decision
accordingly is disposed off. ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) ... aaa/-