Allahabad High Court
VRS FOODS LIMITEDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
Holding
An application under Section 528 is not maintainable where a specific appeal under Section 70 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is available.
Summary
Vrs Foods Ltd. filed an application under Section 528 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, seeking to quash an order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the Nyaya Nirrayak Adhikari/Additional District Magistrate in a case under Section 26(2) of the Act. The State, through the learned A.G.A., raised a preliminary objection that the Section 528 application was not maintainable because an appeal against the order was available under Section 70 of the same Act before the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal. The applicant’s counsel did not contest this contention and agreed that the remedy lay in filing an appeal. The Court dismissed the Section 528 application as not pressed, directing the applicant to pursue an appeal under Section 70, and ordered the certified copy of the order to be returned to counsel.
Issues considered
- Whether an application under Section 528 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is maintainable when an appeal under Section 70 is available.
- Whether the order of the adjudicating officer can be challenged by a Section 528 application despite the existence of a specific appellate remedy.
Legislation cited
- Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 — s. 26(2), 528, 68, 70
Subjects
- Food Safety
- Section 528 application
- Section 70 appeal
- maintainability
- adjudicating officer
- preliminary objection
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8344 of 2026
Vrs Foods Limited
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anay Kumar Srivastava, Samir
Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 81
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant application has been preferred for quashing the order dated
07.11.2025 passed by Nyaya Nirrayak Adhikari/ Additional District
Magistrate (Administration), Mathura in Case No. 000071 of 2021
(Computer Srl. No. D2021015000000071) (State Vs. Pankaj Kumar and
others) under Section 26(2) of Food Safety Standard Act, 2006.
3. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary
objection that the present application under Section 528 BNSS is not
maintainable. It is submitted that the Additional District
Magistrate/Adjudicating Officer passed an order under Section 68 of the
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and that an appeal against the order
dated 07.11.2025, passed by the Adjudicating Officer/Additional District
Magistrate, lies under Section 70 of the Food Safety and Standards Act,
2006 before the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal. The learned A.G.A.
further submitted that the present application under Section 528 BNSS is
liable to be dismissed, as the applicant has an alternative remedy of filing
an appeal before the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal.
4. On being confronted, the learned counsel for the applicant did not
dispute the legal contention raised by the learned A.G.A. However, he
submitted that the present application under Section 528 BNSS may be
dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to file an appeal before the Food
NA528 No. 8344 of 2026
2
Safety Appellate Tribunal.
5. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed as not pressed, with
liberty to file an appeal under Section 70 of the Food Safety and
Standards Act, 2006, before the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal.
6. Office to return certified copy of the order to the counsel for the applicant,
after retaining photostat copy of the same.
(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
March 18, 2026
Radhika
Digitally signed by :-
RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…