Once the appellate forum is constituted, statutory appeal must be pursued, with delay condoned for prior forum unavailability.

The petitioner challenged an ex parte order dated 28.03.2026 passed by the Adjudicating Officer-cum-Additional Collector, Dumka, in FSS Case No. 01/2022–23, imposing a penalty of ₹50,000 under Section 52 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, along with the consequential demand notice dated 20.05.2026.

He alleged, inter alia, violation of natural justice, delay in adjudication, misclassification of the food product, and denial of the statutory opportunity to seek re-testing and appeal.

The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 on the ground that the statutory appellate forum was not functional.

During the proceedings, the Registrar General produced a letter dated 21.08.2026 showing that an appellate authority had been nominated in Dumka; the Court was also informed that appellate tribunals had been constituted throughout Jharkhand.

1. Whether the writ petition should be entertained under Article 226 when a statutory appellate forum under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, had become available.

2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to pursue the statutory appeal notwithstanding any limitation period, given that the appellate forum was previously unavailable.

3. Whether the impugned adjudication order and demand notice were legally sustainable on their merits.

The Court applied the statutory appellate mechanism under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, recognising that orders of the Adjudicating Officer are subject to challenge before an appellate authority headed by a nominated Judicial Officer.

It also applied the principle that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available.

The Court further directed that any delay in filing the appeal should be condoned where the statutory forum was not available to the litigant.

No determination was made on the merits of the alleged violations under Sections 46(4), 51 or 52 of the Act.

The petitioner’s principal justification for invoking Article 226 was the alleged non-functioning of the appellate forum.

The Court found that this factual basis no longer existed because the District & Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dumka, had been nominated as the Presiding Officer for appeals under the Act, and appellate tribunals had been constituted across the State.

Since an alternative statutory remedy was therefore available, the Court declined to examine the petitioner’s challenges to the ex parte order, classification of the product, penalty, or procedural objections.

Instead, it required the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal and protected him against limitation objections arising from the prior non-availability of the forum.

It directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the designated appellate authority in Dumka within three weeks from 24.08.2026.

The appellate authority was expected to hear the appeal on merits at the earliest, and any delay was directed to be condoned because the appellate forum had not been available before 21.08.2026.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.