Ashish Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:21882
1 WP-18730-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
st
ON THE 21 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 18730 of 2026
ASHISH GURJAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sunil Kumar Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sohit Mishra - GA for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
directed against the order dated 18.11.2025 passed by respondent No.3 in
Case No.5/2024/Food Safety/325, whereby the petitioner has been held
guilty under Sections 51 and 58 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006,
and a penalty of Rs.90,000/- has been imposed upon him.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the
impugned order is appealable, the present writ petition is maintainable as the
order has been passed in complete disregard of the procedure prescribed
under law and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended
that the existence of an alternative remedy does not operate as a bar where
the impugned action is ex facie illegal and suffers from procedural
irregularities.
3. On merits, learned counsel submits that the complaint filed by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 7/23/2026
11:37:38 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:21882
2 WP-18730-2026
Food Safety Officer has been accepted as gospel truth without there being
any legally admissible evidence to support the allegations. It is submitted that
neither the statement of the complainant/Food Safety Officer nor the
statements of the independent witnesses, who had signed the seizure
panchnama relating to the food article, namely Paneer, were recorded. It is
argued that except for the complaint, seizure panchnama, Form V-A,
purchase receipt and label slips, no oral evidence was adduced before the
Adjudicating Officer.
4. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rekha Sharad Ushir vs. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd.,
AIR 2025 SC 1857, learned counsel submits that recording the statement of
the complainant on oath is not an empty formality. The object of recording
the statements of the complainant and the witnesses is to ascertain the truth
and to satisfy the authority that sufficient grounds exist to proceed against
the accused. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order, having been
passed without following the aforesaid mandatory procedure, deserves to be
set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State supports
the impugned order and submits that despite due service of notice and grant
of adequate opportunity, the petitioner failed to appear before the
Adjudicating Officer, compelling the authority to proceed ex parte. It is
further submitted that in the absence of any rebuttal by the petitioner and in
view of the report of the Food Analyst declaring the sample to be
adulterated, the Adjudicating Officer rightly passed the impugned order.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 7/23/2026
11:37:38 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:21882
3 WP-18730-2026
6. It is also contended that the impugned order is appealable under the
provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and since no appeal
has been preferred, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground
of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy as well as on the ground
of delay and laches.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The legal position regarding the necessity of recording the statement
of the complainant has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a
catena of decisions, including the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in
Rekha Sharad Ushir (supra). The Supreme Court has categorically held that
recording the statement of the complainant on oath is not an empty formality.
The purpose of recording the statements of the complainant and the
witnesses is to ascertain the truthfulness of the allegations and to enable the
authority to satisfy itself that sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against
the accused. It is only after considering the complaint, the documents filed
along with it and the statements of the complainant and the witnesses that the
authority can apply its mind and arrive at a prima facie satisfaction.
9. In the present case, except for the complaint, seizure panchnama,
Form V-A, purchase receipt and label slips, no other evidence was brought
on record. Admittedly, neither the statement of the complainant/Food Safety
Officer nor the statements of any of the witnesses to the seizure were
recorded. Despite the absence of such evidence, the allegations contained in
the complaint were accepted as proved and the petitioner was held guilty.
10. In the considered opinion of this Court, such a course adopted by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 7/23/2026
11:37:38 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:21882
4 WP-18730-2026
the Adjudicating Officer is contrary to the settled principles of law and
violates the basic requirements of a fair adjudicatory process. The impugned
order, therefore, suffers from a fundamental procedural illegality and cannot
be sustained.
11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.11.2025 passed by
respondent No.3 is hereby set aside. In such matters availability of
alternative remedy cannot be said to be a bar in preferring Writ Petition.
12. The matter is remitted back to the competent Adjudicating
Authority to consider the matter afresh, after following the due procedure
prescribed under law and after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner. The authority shall proceed independently and decide the
matter on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observation made in this
order.
13. The record of the Court below/Adjudicating Authority be sent
back forthwith.
14. The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 7/23/2026
11:37:38 AM