HC seeks FSSAI reply on Lucknow office closure

Lucknow: The Allahabad high court has directed the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India to explain the rationale behind its decision to close its Lucknow office and delegate of control to the authority's New Delhi headquarters. The regulator has to file its reply within three weeks. The direction, issued by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, came in response to a PIL filed by Amit Kumar Mishra. The petitioner has challenged the closure of Lucknow office.

Listing the matter for next hearing on April 20, Chief Justice Chandrachud told counsel of the Union government and FSSAI to file replies "explaining the basis of the decision taken on February 9 2016 by the FSSAI to close down the Lucknow regional office and to confer jurisdiction in respect of the states of Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir, and the Union Territory of Chandigarh upon the office of the deputy director at Delhi regional office."

The closure orders of the Lucknow office have also surprised the state government offices. While CEO, FSSAI, Pawan Agarwal, told TOI that the charge of enforcement and monitoring of food standards have been handed over to the state government, UP officials confirmed to TOI they have not received any such orders from the Authority or the ministry of Health and Family Welfare, which governs the authority.

The FSSAI decision to issue closure orders also appear in contravention of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which mandates that any change in respective areas of which a designated officer is in charge for food safety administration -- in this case, the person in charge of the Lucknow office -- must be announced through a gazette notification, and not through an internal office order. Speaking to TOI, advocate Aseem Goswami, who has in the past represented FSSAI independently, said, "All changes in rules and regulations pertaining to a designated officer must be ratified by both the houses of Parliament. In this case, however, the closure orders were neither notified, nor tabled before parliament for its approval."