GIVE YOUR OPINION ON THIS NEWS . . .

Food Safety Officer, Roorkee for the alleged violation of ... Section 27(2)(c) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006

Uttaranchal High Court

M/S Cargill India Private ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 31 August, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1817 of 2012
M/s Cargill India Private Limited.
... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others
... Respondents.
Mr. Rajesh Batra, Advocate, with Mr. H.M.Bhatia and Ms. Sonia Kakerja, Advocates, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Vijay Lakshmi, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondent nos. 1&2.
Date August 31, 2012.
Hon'ble B.S.Verma, J.
(Stay Application No. 9086 of 2012)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:-
(a) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 16-8-2012 (Annexure-2) and give appropriate opportunity to the petitioner company to cross-examine the witness as per its application filed in the adjudication proceedings bearing no. 14/2012 initiated by the Food Safety Officer, Roorkee for the alleged violation of Section 3(1)(zf)(i)(a) and (b), 31(1)(zf)(B)(ii), Section 3(1)(zx), Section 24, Section 26(2)(ii) & (v), Section 27(2)(c) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Regulation 2.2(3)(i), 2.3(5), 2.4.2(1) & 2.4.6(1) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling )Regulations, 2011 punishable under Sections 51, 52, 53 and 66 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 before the Adjudicating Officer/Additional District Magistrate, Haridwar. (b) any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the time period 90 days will start as prescribed under Proviso to 2
sub-clause (9) of Rule 3.1.1 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 (for short the Rules) from the date fixed for hearing and that the case is at the stage of sub-clause (8) of the said Rule. It appears from a reading of the Proviso appended to sub-clause (9) of Rule 3.1.1 of the Rules that the Adjudicating Officer shall pass the final order within 90 days from the date of first hearing mentioned in rule 3.1.1 (8) above. Sub-clause (8) of the said Rule provides that on the date fixed for hearing, the Adjudicating Officer shall explain to the person or persons proceeded against or to his authorized representative, the offence alleged to have been committed by such person, indicating the provision of the Act, rules or regulations in respect of which the contravention is alleged to have taken place and the opportunity has to be given in view of sub-clause (9) of Rule 3.1.1, which provides that the Adjudicating Officer shall then given an opportunity to such person or persons to produce such documents or evidence as he may consider relevant to the inquiry and if necessary the hearing may be adjourned to a future date.
An application, which has been moved by the petitioner before the Adjudicating Officer, in Case No. 14/2012, Food Safety Officer Roorkee Vs. M/s Bharati Retail Pvt. Ltd. and others, to cross-examine the witnesses, namely, the Officers who gave reports against the petitioner. The application of the petitioner contains names of four such witnesses. By the impugned order, the petitioner has been allowed to cross-examine Food Safety Officer, while according to the petitioner, cross-examine is also necessary of the Food Analysts, who gave report in favour of the petitioner and another gave report against the petitioner and Mr. R.S.Rawat, the Designated Officer.
According to the petitioner, the learned Adjudicating Officer/Additional District Magistrate has not applied his mind and stage of sub-clause (8) of Rule 3.1.1 of the Rules has not come and no such notice has been issued against the petitioner and that the Adjudicating Officer explained the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner.
3
Learned Brief Holder appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. and 2, Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, is directed to seek instruction in the matter and to inform the Court whether the learned Adjudicating Officer has framed charges against the petitioner, as indicated in sub-clause (8) of Rule 3.1.1 of the Act. List the petition on 10-9-2012.
Till the next date of listing, the Adjudicating Officer shall not proceed further in the case No. 14/2012, Food Safety Officer Roorkee Vs. M/s Bharati Retail Pvt. Ltd. and others.

Adverse Health Impact of Chemicals and Fertilizers

Keeping in view the adverse health impact, the Government of India had banned the use of DDT for agricultural purpose in 1988 and the use of BHC in 1997.

The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has not carried out any study on adverse health impact of these pesticides.

The ICMR is not aware of the studies revealing that diet of an Indian contains 0.27mg of DDT. However as per the total Diet Studies conducted at National Institute of Nutrition (ICMR), in Andhra Pradesh, the intake of total DDT was found to be far less than the acceptable daily in takes (ADI) in all the age groups of the population ranging from 0.01-0.03% of ADIs. As per the provisions of Food Safety & Standards Authority of India, food inspectors pick up samples of food from across the country to check their compliance to the various standards laid down by the Authority.

Are we eating pesticides?

DINAMALAR NEWS