Timelines Prescribed Under The Rules Are Not Ornamental | Orissa High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To Conclude Nine-Year-Old MSG Case In One Month And Imposes Cost For Delay
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Orissa Single Bench of Justice Dr. Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi has held that the prolonged pendency of adjudication proceedings under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, beyond the statutory timeframe, constitutes an abuse of process. The Court directed the Additional District Magistrate-cum-Adjudicating Authority, Cuttack, to hear and finally dispose of the adjudication case within one month from the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. Additionally, considering the exceptional delay of over nine years and the resultant prejudice to the petitioner, the Court imposed costs of ₹25,000 on the adjudicating authority to be paid to the petitioner within four weeks.
The Court observed that the failure to act on representations filed by the petitioner and the inaction in concluding the proceedings reflected administrative apathy. It underscored that timelines for adjudication are not optional but a statutory mandate essential to upholding the efficacy of regulatory enforcement. The writ petition was accordingly allowed in part.
The writ petition was filed by M/s. Indo Nissin Foods Pvt. Ltd., a multinational company engaged in the business of fast-moving consumer goods, challenging the continued adjudication of Adjudication Case No. 2 of 2016 before the Additional District Magistrate-cum-Adjudicating Authority, Cuttack. The challenge was based on the grounds of arbitrariness, legal unsustainability, and violation of statutory orders issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).
The controversy originated from an inspection conducted on 09.06.2015 by a Food Safety Officer at the business premises of Accused No. 2, where Mr. Abhisek Agarwal, Depot In-Charge, was present. The officer inspected food articles, including 'Top Ramen Masala - Instant Noodles' and 'Top Ramen Curry Veg - Saucy Flat Noodles' in 280-gram poly packs. Samples were collected in accordance with Rule 2.4.1(3) of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011, and sent for analysis to the City Health Officer, Cuttack, and subsequently to the State Public Health Laboratory, Pune.
The Director of the laboratory issued reports (D.O.-72/15/388/2015 and D.O.-73/15/389/2015), which recorded the presence of Monosodium L-Glutamate (MSG) in the 'Top Ramen Masala' sample despite the label bearing the declaration "No added MSG (poly)." This was held to contravene Regulation 2.3.1(5) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011.
The analysis report was forwarded to the petitioner, and the Food Safety Officer sought consent from the City Health Officer-cum-Designated Officer, Cuttack, to prosecute. Upon receiving the consent, adjudication proceedings were initiated.
The petitioner responded by submitting a representation under Rule 3.1.1(6) of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011, denying the allegations. During the pendency of the proceedings, FSSAI issued an order dated 31.03.2016, clarifying that glutamate can occur naturally in various food substances and that no analytical method exists to conclusively differentiate between naturally occurring and added MSG. It stated enforcement should proceed only where the label specifically states “NO MSG” or “NO ADDED MSG” and MSG is found.
Based on this order, the petitioner filed two petitions, on 01.11.2016 and 04.12.2018, before the adjudicating authority seeking dismissal of the proceedings. Despite the hearing being concluded, no order was passed. On inquiry, the petitioner was informed that a response was awaited from the Commissioner, Food Safety. With no decision forthcoming and no alternative remedy, the petitioner approached the High Court.
The petitioner contended that the proceedings were in direct contravention of the FSSAI directive and violated principles of natural justice. It argued that the continuation of proceedings for more than nine years, despite a statutory requirement to conclude within 90 days, was arbitrary and oppressive. The petitioner claimed reputational harm and legal uncertainty due to the prolonged pendency.
Justice Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, while considering the matter, "heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record." The Court limited its focus to the legality of the delay rather than examining the substance of the MSG allegations.
"The primary issue for consideration in the present Writ Petition is whether the continuation of Adjudication Case No. 2 of 2016 before the Additional District Magistrate-cum-Adjudicating Authority, Cuttack, despite the passage of more than nine years, is legally sustainable in view of the statutory framework governing adjudication under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the Rules framed thereunder."
The Court referred to Rule 9 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011, which mandates that the adjudicating officer shall pass the final order within 90 days from the date of the first hearing.
"The statutory scheme envisages a time-bound conclusion of adjudication proceedings, recognising that undue delay in regulatory enforcement undermines both procedural fairness and the efficacy of the statutory framework."
"However, in the present case, the proceedings have remained pending since the year 2015, a period exceeding nine years. This Court is at a loss to understand as to how such an extraordinary delay has occurred and, more alarmingly, how has it continued unchecked."
The Court remarked on the absence of any final order despite representations filed by the petitioner in 2016 and 2018.
"Such administrative inaction is not only indefensible but also reflects a disturbing disregard for procedural discipline."
It stressed the importance of adhering to statutory timelines: "It must be underscored that the timelines prescribed under the Rules are not ornamental. They are not merely directory but reflect the legislative intent to ensure prompt and effective adjudication in regulatory matters."
The Court criticized the adjudicating authority: "This Court strongly deprecates the laxity displayed by Opposite Party No. 3 in the discharge of its statutory obligations."
"Legal proceedings cannot be allowed to linger in perpetuity, particularly when the law mandates a clear deadline for disposal."
In conclusion, the Court issued clear and time-bound directions:
"In light of the foregoing analysis and having regard to the inordinate, unexplained, and legally impermissible delay in concluding Adjudication Case No. 2 of 2016, this Court is of the considered view that the prolonged pendency of the proceedings amounts to an abuse of process."
"While the merits of the case must be adjudicated in accordance with law, the delay of over nine years is wholly unacceptable and undermines the very purpose of the adjudicatory mechanism envisaged under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006."
Accordingly, the Court directed: "The Additional District Magistrate-cum-Adjudicating Authority, Cuttack (Opposite Party No.3), is directed to hear and finally dispose of Adjudication Case No. 2 of 2016 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, without fail."
In light of the prejudice to the petitioner, the Court also imposed costs: "Considering the exceptional delay and the resultant prejudice caused to the petitioner, this Court deems it just and proper to impose costs. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.3 is directed to pay a sum of ₹25,000 (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) to the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from today."
"Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part."
"Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sumit Lal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Rath, AGA
Case Title: M/s. Indo Nissin Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.10477 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dr. Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi
[Read/Download order]
