- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13887 WP No. 102851 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 102851 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: BHAVANI MILK DAIRY, REPRESENT BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRIKANT MUVVA S/O SURENDRA BABU MUVVA, AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 2ND CROSS, NEAR BHAVANI MILK DAIRY, B T PATIL NAGAR, KOPPAL – 583 231. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C. R. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ADJUDICATION OFFICER AND ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COURT KOPPAL, DISTRICT: KOPPAL – 583 231. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF FOOD SAFETY PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE SHESHADRI ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. 3. THE FOOD SAFETY OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARD, KOPPAL – 583 231. 4. THE CHIEF FOOD ANALYST, DIVISIONAL FOOD LABORATORY, UNAR KHAYAM ROAD, TILAKNAGAR, Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13887 WP No. 102851 of 2025 MYSORE – 570 001. 5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP/BY THE DESIGNATED OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARD, KOPPAL – 583 231. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER NO. ASUGU/APPEAL/06/2024-25, DATED 04.01.2025, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND ALSO A REPORT NO. DFL/FSSA/ML- 2332/2024, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4, DATED 27.11.2024 THE COPY OF THE SAME IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A AND B, CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT FILED UNDER SECTION 200 OF CR.P.C AND UNDER SECTION 51 OF FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS ACT, 2006 (NEITHER RESPONDENT NO.1 HAS SERVED WITH COPY OF COMPLAINT NOR THEY HAVE PROVIDED THE SAME ON THE REQUEST MADE BY THE COMPLAINT BY WAY OF APPLICATION DATED 06.03.2025. WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO CONSIDER THE OBJECTION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 04.03.2025, PLACED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.3 TO REFUND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 50,000/- PAID BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH A CHALLAN DATED 04.01.2024 AS A FINE IMPOSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, COY OF OBJECTION IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H. WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT NO. 5 TO TELECAST THE NEWS AND REPORT THE NEWS REGARDING LAB REPORT DATED 27.11.2024 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 4 IS NOT RELATING TO PETITIONER S FOOD PRODUCE AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13887 WP No. 102851 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) The petitioner - Bhavani Milk Dairy (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Dairy’ for short) is at the doors of this Court calling in question order dated 04.01.2025 and report of the 4th respondent dated 27.11.2024 on the complaint so registered before the concerned Court under Section 51 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short). 2. Heard Sri. C.R. Hiremath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V.S. Kalasurmath, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows. The petitioner is said to be running the business of sale of Milk and its products like ghee, curds and pickles in the name of style of the Dairy. On 05.11.2024, the respondent designated Food Officer under the Act is said to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13887 WP No. 102851 of 2025 have inspected the business premises of the petitioner. On the said inspection, takes the sample of ghee, milk, curd and pickle that was sold in the said premises. The petitioner was unaware of what happened after the taking of the sample, on 30.11.2024, petitioner seeks information about the seized product. It is then the Food Officer is said to have issued analysis report of Ghee in statutory form. On 26.12.24, the 5th respondent issues a notice to the petitioner directing his presence for a proceeding, in relation to production and supply of sub-standard ghee. The notice for the first time, indicated that the substandard ghee was pursuant to a analysis at a food laboratory. The notice further indicates that it is based upon the aforesaid report dated 27.11.2024. The petitioner then appears before the 1st respondent and challenges the proceedings. The result of the proceeding is, declaring the sample collected i.e., ghee to be substandard and imposition of penalty of Rs.50,000/-. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13887 WP No. 102851 of 2025 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the procedural lacunae galore in the case at hand, inasmuch as the procedure adopted by the respondents in determination or drawing up proceedings runs completely counter to Section 47 of the Act. It is his submission that Section 47 of the Act mandates that when the Food Safety Officer takes a sample of food for analysis, he should give a notice in writing with his intention to have it so analysed, to the person from whom he has taken the sample. This is one of the illegality. The learned counsel submits that this has not been done by the Food Safety Officer and therefore, it is in violation of law. The learned counsel would submit that this is only an illustration of violation, but violations are many in the case at hand. He would further contend that the report of the Food Analyst appended to the petition would depict that the sample for analysis was received on 28.11.2024, but the analysis is done on 27.11.2024, which is long before the receipt of the sample. He would contend that an antedated report is placed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13887 WP No. 102851 of 2025 contrary to law and the penalty is imposed without application of mind. 4. Per contra, Shri V.S. Kalasurmath, learned Additional Government Advocate would place on record two documents, which depict the date of receipt of the sample on 08.11.2024 and would submit that all other procedures are clearly followed while drawing up the report of the analyst. The learned AGA further takes this Court through a document that he is now wanting to place before this Court for the first time that the sample was received on 08.11.2024 and it was analyzed between 21.11.2024 and 27.11.2024. In that light, the dates are only a mistake and there is no illegality in the procedure. He would seek dismissal of the petition. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for parties and have perused the material on record. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13887 WP No. 102851 of 2025 6. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute, they are a matter of record and the link in the chain of events is jugglery of dates. The inspection of the premises of the petitioner was conducted on 05.11.2024, after the inspection, the sample of ghee which was allegedly substandard, was drawn from the premises of the petitioner and sent for examination. There is a dispute with regard to what is the amount of sample that was drawn, whether it is 200 grams or 500 grams. The report appended to the petition depicts that it is 500 grams. Learned AGA has placed on record that it is 200 grams and not 500 grams. 7. The other submission is with regard to the receipt of the sample. The report of the Food Analyst indicates that the sample was received for its analysis on 28.11.2024, but the analysis of the sample is done on the previous dates between 21.11.2024 and 27.11.2024. Therefore, in a shocking case, the Analyst analyses a sample that was not even before him. Thus, it becomes a case where analyses is taken in thin air. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13887 WP No. 102851 of 2025 8. If the sample is received only on 28.11.2024, it is un-understandable as to how the report is drawn on 27.11.2024, indicating that the food sample is analysed on 21.11.2024 to 27.11.2024. The justification of the learned AGA is, on the face of it untenable. The corrected version of the report that he seeks to place on record by way of submitting a document today is not even found in the statement of objections. Let alone production of documents, there is no whisper about it in the statement of objections. Therefore, it is the first blush of illegality. 9. To consider the said ground, it is necessary to notice Section 47 of the Act. Section 47 of the Act reads as follows: “47. Sampling and analysis. (1) When a Food Safety Officer takes a sample of food for analysis, he shall – (a) give notice in writing of his intention to have it so analysed to the person from whom he has taken the sample and to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed; (b) except in special cases as may be provided by rules made under this Act, divide the sample into four parts and mark and seal or fasten up each part - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13887 WP No. 102851 of 2025 in such a manner as its nature permits and take the signature or thumb impression Of the person from whom the sample has been taken in such place and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government: Provided that where such person refuses to sign or put his thumb impression, the Food Safety Officer shall call upon one or more witnesses and take his signature or thumb impression, in lieu of the signature or thumb impression of such person; (c) (i) send one of the parts for analysis to the Food Analyst under intimation to the Designated Officer; (ii) send two parts to the Designated Officer for keeping these in safe custody; and (iii) send the remaining part for analysis to an accredited laboratory, if so requested by the food business operator, under intimation to the Designated Officer: Provided that if the test reports received under sub clauses (i) and (iii) are found to be at variance, then the Designated Officer shall send one part of the sample kept in his custody, to referral laboratory for analysis, whose decision thereon shall be final. (2) When a sample of any article of food or adulterant is taken, the Food Safety Officer shall, by the immediate succeeding working day, send the sample to the Food Analyst for the area concerned for analysis and report. (3) Where the part of the sample sent to the Food Analyst is lost or damaged, the Designated Officer shall, on a requisition made to him, by the Food Analyst or the Food Safety Officer, despatch one of the parts of the sample sent to him, to the Food Analyst for analysis. (4) An article of food or adulterant seized, unless destroyed, shall be produced before the Designated Officer as soon as possible and in any case not later - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13887 WP No. 102851 of 2025 than seven days after the receipt of the report of the Food Analyst: Provided that if an application is made to the Designated Officer in this behalf by the person from whom any article of food has been seized, the Designated Officer shall by order in writing direct the Food Safety Officer to produce such article before him within such time as may be specified in the order. (5) In case of imported articles of food, the authorised officer of the Food Authority shall take its sample and send to the Food Analyst of notified laboratory for analysis who shall send the report within a period of five days to the authorised officer. (6) The Designated Officer, the Food Safety Officer, the authorised officer and the Food Analyst shall follow such procedure as may be specified by regulations.” Section 47 deals with sampling and analyses. Section 47(1)(a) mandates certain functions at the hands of the Food Safety Officer. The Food Safety Officer who takes the food for analyses shall give notice in writing of his intention to have the sample analysed to the person, from whom such sample is taken. It is an admitted fact that no notice is whatsoever is issued to the petitioner after drawing up the sample contending that the food safety officer is wanting to take the sample analysed. Not issuing any - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13887 WP No. 102851 of 2025 notice or no communication is contrary to the statute. As observed this is the second blush of illegality. 10. The third blush is, qua Section (4) of Section 47 of the Act. Subsection (4) mandates that the article of food unless destroyed shall be produced before the designated officer as soon as possible at any rate within 7 days from the date of report of the food analyst. To a pointed query to the learned AGA, the answer is that, there is no production of article of food before the Designated Officer within 7 days from the date of report of the food analyst. Let alone producing the food article before the designated officer, the analyst does not even know when he has conducted the test, is it before the receipt of the sample or after the receipt of sample. The entire proceeding in the case at hand is thus, shrouded with gross illegality. Whether ghee that is drawn 200 grams. or 500 grams is of no avail. That is bare minimum illegality. What is drawn is 500 grams, what is shown is 200 grams., larger illegalities galore. In that light, with the admission of such illegalities, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13887 WP No. 102851 of 2025 the writ petition deserves to succeed and the amount of penalty that is imposed upon the petitioner at Rs.50,000/- is to be directed to be refunded. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed (ii) The order bearing No.AsuGu/ Appeal/ 06/ 2024-25, dated 04.01.2025, passed by respondent No.1 and also a report bearing No.DFL/ FSSA/ ML-2332/ 2024, issued by respondent No.4, dated 27.11.2024, vide Annexures-A and B stand quashed. (iii) The amount of penalty that is collected by the respondent from the hands of the petitioner shall be refunded within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which it shall - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13887 WP No. 102851 of 2025 carry a cost of ₹.50,000/- apart from the refund of ₹.50,000/- that is to be recovered. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RSH & VNP / CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76