Recording complainant’s statement on oath is mandatory to verify allegations and ensure fair adjudicatory process.

The petitioner challenged an order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Officer (Respondent No. 3), which found him guilty under Sections 51 and 58 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 90,000/- regarding an adulterated sample of 'Paneer'.

The Adjudicating Officer proceeded ex parte after the petitioner failed to appear despite notice.

The conviction was based solely on the Food Safety Officer’s complaint, seizure panchnama, and the Food Analyst’s report; however, no oral evidence or statements from the complainant or independent witnesses were recorded.

The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, bypassing the statutory appeal process on grounds of procedural illegality.

The court applied the principles of Article 226 of the Constitution regarding the maintainability of writ petitions where there is a fundamental breach of natural justice or procedure despite alternative remedies.

It relied on the precedent of Rekha Sharad Ushir vs. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd. (AIR 2025 SC 1857), which establishes that recording the statement of a complainant on oath is a mandatory requirement, not an empty formality, intended to ascertain the truth of allegations before proceeding.

The proceedings were governed by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, specifically the procedural requirements for adjudication under Sections 51 and 58.

The Court observed that the Adjudicating Officer treated the Food Safety Officer's complaint as "gospel truth" without requiring supporting oral evidence.

Applying the ratio in Rekha Sharad Ushir, the Court reasoned that the authority must satisfy itself of the existence of sufficient grounds by considering not just documents (like the seizure panchnama and lab report) but also the sworn statements of the complainant and witnesses.

Since the Adjudicating Officer failed to record such statements, the Court found the process to be in complete disregard of the law and a violation of fair adjudicatory principles.

Regarding the respondent's objection to the alternative remedy, the Court held that a fundamental procedural illegality justifies the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 18.11.2025. The matter was remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority to conduct a fresh inquiry following due procedure, including the recording of evidence and providing the petitioner an adequate opportunity to be heard.