Srinagar, Oct 27: Food Safety Tribunal, Srinagar, on Wednesday put in abeyance the order of the Adjudicating Officer wherein the latter had imposed fine on two food business operators.
After hearing appellants through their counsel Advocate Mir Naveed Gul, the Food Safety Tribunal presided over by M.Y Akhoon said that appellants seem to have raised substantial questions of fact and law for adjudication of this Tribunal.
“Let the appeal be diarised. Issue notice to the respondent for appearance and for filing a reply. The notice to the respondent be accompanied with a copy of the appeal. Record from Adjudicating Officer, Anantnag be also called for perusal,” court said.
The court added that till the respondent file reply and the matter is considered on receipt of reply thereof by the respondent and the pleas raised in the appeal, the order impugned passed by the Adjudicating Officer, Anantnag, is kept in abeyance.
Earlier, advocate Gul submitted before court that the Adjudicating Officer has passed the order impugned without following the procedure prescribed under the law.
He further pleaded that appellants were not given any opportunity to be heard by the Adjudication Officer which is against the principles of natural justice. He submitted that trial court has not followed the mandate of law as envisaged nor substance of accusation was stated to the accused persons.
“My clients were not given an opportunity to engage the services of an advocate nor any confessional statement was recorded by the trial court/Adjudicating Officer therefore the impugned order is passed in a mechanical manner without following the due procedure of law, as such the order of penalty is bad in law and deserves to be set aside on this Count alone,” advocate Gul pleaded before court while seeking setting aside of the impugned order.
Among various grounds invoking to seek setting aside of impugned order, he further pleaded that adjudicating authority has thrown all the settled norms of procedure to winds and as such, deserves to be quashed.
“My clients have been condemned unheard and Doctrine of Audi-alterem-Partem has not been complied with and without hearing the parties the impugned order has been passed by the Adjudicating officer, therefore deserves to be set aside,” advocate Gul submitted before the court.