The Allahabad High Court has underscored the fundamental requirement of natural justice in administrative proceedings, setting aside a penalty order under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 for being passed without notice to the affected party. The judgment reinforces that due process is non-negotiable, even in regulatory matters, and remands the case for fresh adjudication with proper opportunity of hearing.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, M/S V.R.S. Foods Ltd., a company engaged in the food business, challenged an order dated 13.04.2026 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (East), Lucknow, acting as the Adjudicating Officer under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The impugned order imposed a penalty on the petitioner, but the core grievance was procedural: no notice was served prior to its passing.
Key Facts
- The petitioner is a reputed company with goodwill in national and international markets, operating in the lawful food business.
- The impugned order was passed by the Adjudicating Officer under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
- The petitioner alleged violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as the arbitrary penalty adversely affected its trade reputation and commercial operations.
- The State-respondent, through the Assistant Commissioner (Food)-II, Food Safety & Drugs Administration, Lucknow, conceded that there was no record of notice served on the petitioner.
Procedural History
- 13.04.2026: Impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Officer without notice to the petitioner.
- 2026: Writ Petition (WP(C) No. 7017 of 2026) filed before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench.
- 13.07.2026: Present judgment delivered by Hon’ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of the impugned order dated 13.04.2026 for violating principles of natural justice.
- Remand of the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication after affording due opportunity of hearing.
- Protection of its constitutional right under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on trade without arbitrary interference.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an administrative order imposing a penalty under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 can be sustained if passed without serving notice to the affected party, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- Contended that the impugned order was vitiated as it was passed behind the petitioner’s back, without any notice.
- Argued that the violation of natural justice rendered the order void ab initio.
- Submitted that the arbitrary penalty adversely impacted the petitioner’s goodwill, trade reputation, and commercial operations, infringing its constitutional right under Article 19(1)(g).
For the Respondent
- The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, based on instructions from the Assistant Commissioner (Food)-II, conceded that there was no record of notice served on the petitioner.
- Did not dispute the procedural lapse but sought remand for fresh adjudication.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the principles of natural justice are sacrosanct in administrative proceedings, regardless of the nature of the dispute. It relied on the settled legal position that no order, especially one imposing a penalty, can be passed without affording the affected party an opportunity of hearing. The Court noted:
"The impugned order, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, is hereby set aside on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice."
The Court further emphasized that due process is not a mere formality but a constitutional mandate, particularly when the reputation and livelihood of a party are at stake. It held that the admission of the State-respondent regarding the absence of notice was sufficient to vitiate the impugned order.
The Verdict
The Court set aside the impugned order dated 13.04.2026 and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication. The concerned authority was directed to:
- Afford due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
- Decide the matter on merits within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it.
The writ petition was disposed of with the above directions.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Natural Justice Is Non-Negotiable
This judgment reaffirms that principles of natural justice are absolute in administrative proceedings. Practitioners must:
- Challenge any order passed without notice as void ab initio.
- Demand remand for fresh adjudication where procedural lapses are evident.
- Rely on the State’s concession in similar cases to strengthen arguments for setting aside arbitrary orders.
Due Process Protects Constitutional Rights
- The Court’s observation that arbitrary penalties infringe Article 19(1)(g) can be invoked in cases where trade or commercial rights are affected.
- Regulatory authorities must ensure strict compliance with procedural safeguards before imposing penalties, failing which orders are liable to be quashed.
Remand Is the Default Remedy for Procedural Violations
- Where natural justice is violated, courts are likely to remand the matter rather than adjudicate on merits.
- Practitioners should push for timelines (e.g., the three-month period directed here) to ensure expeditious disposal post-remand.
