R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE7H DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI WRIT PETITION No.57066 OF2016(LB-BMP) ...PETITIONER BETWEEN SANGAM SWEETS HEAD OFFICE AT No.12, SANGAM BUILDING, 2ND CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR HARISH BHAGWANJI S/O LATE BHAGWANJI DHANJI AGE:
55. YEARS. (BY SRI SACHIN B S, ADVOCATE) AND1 MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH GANDHINAGARA ZONE, POORNAIAH CHATRAM ROAD, TULSI THOTA, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) BANGALORE-560 009.
2. SENIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR GANDHINAGARA ZONE, POORNAIAH CHATRAM ROAD, TULSI THOTA, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGRA PALIKE (BBMP) BANGALORE-560 009. Date of order :
07. 11.2016 in W.P. No.57066/2016 Sangam Sweets vs. Medical Officer of Health and others 2/5 BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. ...RESPONDENTS3 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED3110.2016 ISSUED BY R-1 & 2 AS PER ANNEXURE-A. THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, ORDER
Mr. Sachin B.S., Adv. for Petitioner.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Sangam Sweets against the impugned notice Annexure-A dated 31.10.2016 issued by the respondents No.1 and 2 who, upon inspection, found certain deficiencies in the working of the said sweet shop like, No Medical Certificate obtained for the food handlers, Food articles are kept exposed to flies, insects and dust, Kitchen kept very dirty, Chipped out, cups and plates, deformed and untinned utensils are being used etc., and garbage not properly collected and covered by lid and a penalty of Date of order :
07. 11.2016 in W.P. No.57066/2016 Sangam Sweets vs. Medical Officer of Health and others 3/5 Rs.1,00,000/- was proposed to be imposed on the said petitioner.
2. The petitioner has rushed to this Court against the said notice by way of filing this writ petition on 04.11.2016, without even filing a reply to the said notice before the respondent-authorities, along with some site photographs, a copy of the licence and the certificates issued for various workmen about their medical fitness etc.
3. Mr.Sachin B.S., learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before the Court that since the respondent-authorities are insisting upon payment of the said penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- beforehand, the present writ petition has been filed in this Court.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned notice Annexure-A dated 31.10.2016 is only a notice calling upon the petitioner to meet the objections and Date of order :
07. 11.2016 in W.P. No.57066/2016 Sangam Sweets vs. Medical Officer of Health and others 4/5 deficiencies pointed out in the said notice, which of-course, prima facie, appear to be of serious nature. The food safety norms cannot be compromised at any rate. The respondent-authorities have inspected the sweet shop of the petitioner and have prima facie found certain deficiencies. Misplaced sympathy and protection of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be extended unless and until the petitioner or other businessmen in a similar position can, with the reliable evidence are directed to show-cause before the concerned authorities themselves and the concerned authorities in discharging their quasi-judicial functions pass appropriate speaking orders in the matter.
5. This Court does not find any basis for the apprehension and allegation of the petitioner that the respondent-authorities are insisting upon payment of the penalty amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-. The said notice neither gives any period within which such amount is to be Date of order :
07. 11.2016 in W.P. No.57066/2016 Sangam Sweets vs. Medical Officer of Health and others 5/5 paid nor it contains any order to pay the same immediately. The petitioner, admittedly, has not filed his reply before the concerned authorities requesting them to pass appropriate orders. Therefore, this contention is belied from the record. The deposit of said amount of penalty even if deposited will remain subject to the final adjudication made by the respondent-authority.
6. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction merely because the notice issued by the respondent-authorities, which is required to be properly adjudicated on the basis of the suitable evidence led by the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No Sd/- JUDGE costs. TL