துப்பட்டி கடைகளில் பான்பராக், குட்கா பறிமுதல்

திருமங்கலம்:

திருமங்கலம் அருகே உணவு பாதுகாப்பு நியமன அலுவலர் சுகுணா தலைமையில் அதிகாரிகள் வேல்முருகன், திருமூர்த்தி ஆகியோர் கடைகளை சோதனையிட்டனர்.
புதுப்பட்டி கடைகளில் நடந்த சோதனையில் பான்பராக், குட்கா பறிமுதல் செய்யப்பட்டது. செங்கப்படையில் கன்னி செல்வராஜ் பலசரக்கு குடோனில் ரூ.50 ஆயிரம் மதிப்புள்ள 20 கிலோ போதை பொருட்கள் பறிமுதல் செய்யப்பட்டது.

Advertisements

ஓட்டல், சினிமா தியேட்டர்களில் பன்றி காய்ச்சல் நோய் தடுப்பு குறித்து விழிப்புணர்வு பிரசாரம்

கடலூர்

கடலூரில் ஓட்டல், சினிமா தியேட்டர், விடுதிகளில் பன்றி காய்ச்சல் நோய் தடுப்பு குறித்து சுகாதாரத்துறை அதிகாரிகள் விழிப்புணர்வு பிரசாரம் மேற்கொண்டனர்.

பன்றி காய்ச்சல்

கடலூர் மாவட்டத்தில் கலெக்டர் சுரேஷ்குமார் உத்தரவின் பேரில் சுகாதாரத்துறை மற்றும் உள்ளாட்சி துறை அதிகாரிகள் பன்றி காய்ச்சல் நோய் தடுப்பு நடவடிக்கையை மேற்கொண்டு வருகிறார்கள். அந்த வகையில் நேற்று மாவட்ட சுகாதாரப்பணிகள் துணை இயக்குநர் டாக்டர் ஜவஹர்லால் தலைமையில், மாவட்ட உணவு பாதுகாப்பு அதிகாரி டாக்டர் எம்.பி.ராஜா, நகர் நல அதிகாரி டாக்டர் சிவகுமார் மற்றும் துப்புரவு ஆய்வாளர்கள் கடலூரில் உள்ள சினிமா தியேட்டர், ஓட்டல் மற்றும் விடுதிகள் ஆகியவற்றுக்கு சென்று பன்றி காய்ச்சல் நோய் தடுப்பு குறித்து விழிப்புணர்வு பிரசாரம் மேற்கொண்டனர்.

விழிப்புணர்வு

முன்னதாக கடலூர் பஸ்நிலையம் அருகில் உள்ள சினிமா தியேட்டருக்குள் சென்று அங்குள்ள கழிப்பறைகள் சுகாதாரமாக இருக்கிறதா என பார்வையிட்டனர். பின்னர் தியேட்டர் ஊழியர்களிடம் ஒவ்வொரு காட்சி முடிந்த பின்னர் பொதுமக்கள் கைகளால் தொடக் கூடிய இடங்களையும், கைப்பிடி கம்பிகளையும் கிருமி நாசினி கொண்டு சுத்தமாக கழுவ வேண்டும், இருமும் போது கைக்குட்டையை பயன்படுத்த வேண்டும், சுத்தம் செய்யும் ஊழியர்கள் கையுறை, மாஸ்க் போன்ற உபகரணங்களை அணிந்து இருக்க வேண்டும், தரைப்பகுதியை துடைப்பம் கொண்டு சுத்தம் செய்ய கூடாது, மாப்பு கொண்டு சுத்தம் செய்ய வேண்டும், சுத்தம் செய்த பின்னர் சோப்பு போட்டு கைகளை நன்றாக கழுவ வேண்டும் என அறிவுரை வழங்கினார்கள்.

இதைத் தொடர்ந்து ஓட்டல், தனியார் விடுதிகள் ஆகியவற்றுக்கும் சென்று அங்கு பணிபுரியும் ஊழியர்களிடம் பன்றி காய்ச்சல் நோயின் அறிகுறிகள், பரவும் விதம், தடுக்கும் முறைகள் குறித்தும் விழிப்புணர்வு ஏற்படுத்தினர்.

FSS Act – Packing regulations -Kolkatta HC – Imported choclates case -Sarad Kumar Bohra vs Union Of India on 21 August, 2014

 ORDER SHEET

                                 WP NO.472 OF 2014

                            IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

                            Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

                                  ORIGINAL SIDE

                                SARAD KUMAR BOHRA
                                    Versus
               UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ORS.
                             ..................

BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI Date : 21st August, 2014.

Mr. R.K. Chowdhury…for petitioner.

Mr. S. Moitra, Mr. G. Purokayastha…for respon dent no.3. Mr. P.K. Roy, Mr. K.K. Maity…for respondent nos.1 & 2. The Court : The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India has held up a sizeable quantity of sugar confectionery imported by the writ petitioner.

Their allegation is that the products and the packages containing them are violative of The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 read with The Food Safety and Standards [Packaging and Labelling] Regulations, 2011.

On the court application day, I permitted filing of affidavits. An affidavit has been affirmed and filed by one Mr. Khuntia, a senior Inspecting Officer “[under designate from my Deputy Director Sri Ais Kumar]”.

According to the report of food analysis appended thereto from pages 47 to 57 thereof, the samples were tested against their physical appearance and for presence of certain substances. According to the report the sample “conforms to the above parameters” as per clause 2.7.2, appendix A & 2.1 [metal contaminates] of Food Safety Standards Rules and Regulation, 2011.

Mr. Moitra, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent made very extensive submissions. He argued that the goods should be sent back to the country of origin. He showed me the relevant provisions of the Act, particularly those relating to misbranding, packaging, labelling, etc. provided in sections 23 to 26 thereof. He took me through the Label Regulation, being 2.2 particularly, 2.2.2[2]. He also placed Regulation 2.7 with regard to the items permitted in sweets and confectionery [2.7.1].

He argued on that basis that the label of the goods of the petitioner was defective. It mentioned that the product contained “seaweed” but failed to mention any particular type of seaweed that it product contained. Seaweed, of only particular types were safe for human consumption, others were not, it was said.

The type “Agar Agar” is permitted by the Regulations to be used as a jelly agent [see Appendix A Table 13 I[2] of the said Regulations], as shown to me by Mr. Chowdhury, learned advocate for the petitioner. But the contention of Mr. Moitra was that unless this particular seaweed was declared in the label, it contravened the provisions of the said Act and Regulations.

In my opinion, on going through the annexures to the affidavit in opposition, it appears that the products sought to be imported are safe for human consumption, in all other respects. There is only an element of doubt with regard to the presence of seaweed and the absence of a declaration in the label that the permitted type of seaweed “Agar Agar” is included in the product.

Mr. Chowdhury, learned advocate, throughout his argument maintained that the products were imported in packages from Taiwan and Malayasia. They were sold internationally. Only the safe type of seaweed “Agar Agar” had been used.

I also take note of his submission that earlier consignments of identical goods were released without objection.

In that view of the matter, one cannot stop importation of the said goods. But the imported goods can only be released in the market upon a label being permanently affixed by the importer to the effect that the product contains “Agar Agar”, a permitted seaweed and no other type of seaweed. This labelling has to be done on all the imported packages to the satisfaction of the Food Safety Department. The Food Safety Department will issue a ‘No Objection Certificate’ within 48 hours thereafter. The Customs Authorities will thereupon take steps for expeditious release of the goods.

The writ application is allowed to the above extent. Mr. Moitra prays for stay of operation of this order. Since the question of food safety is involved, the prayer for stay is considered. The respondents, at their option, may not comply with this order for a period of ten days from date.

Certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(I. P. MUKERJI, J.) Pkd.

A.R.[C.R.]

Consumer Disputes Redressal – Black worms in Sprite bottle – M/s Amritsar Crown Corps Pvt. Ltd. vs Dinesh Kumar Garg on 6 June, 2013

 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
              PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH

               FIRST APPEAL NO. 1178 OF 2011

               Date of Institution: 04.08.2011
               Date of Decision: 06.06.2013

1.

M/s Amritsar Crown Corps Pvt. Ltd., Factory 14 km stone, Amritsar-Jalandhar GT Road, V&PO Nawan Kot near Jandala Guru, District Amritsar through its Area Manager.

…..Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 VERSUS

1. Dinesh Kumar Garg son of Vishwa Mittar C/o Suraj Bhan Vishwamittar, Commission Agents, Lehra Bazar, Rampura, Phul, District Bathinda.

…..Respondent/Complainant

2. Harish Variety Store, Prop. Sanjay Tanwar son of Chiman Lal, resident of near Railway Phatak, Bathinda-Barnala Road, Opposite Stelco Industry, Rampura.

                                 .....Respondent/Opposite Party No.2
                               First Appeal against the order
                               dated 19.5.2011 passed by the
                               District   Consumer      Disputes
                               Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Quorum:
     Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
     Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member

Present:
     For the appellant      : Sh.Achin Gupta, Advocate
     For respondents        : Ex-parte


BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER

This appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party No.1, against the order dated 19.5.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short “District Forum”), vide which the complaint of the respondent No.1/complainant was allowed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the complainant purchased two Sprite bottles, 1.5 Ltr. each, manufactured by opposite party No.1, through opposite party No.2, on 23.10.2010 for Rs.110/- but no bill was issued to him by opposite party No.2. Out of these two bottles, one bottle was consumed by the complainant which caused unnecessary trouble in his abdomen and burning sensation. On checking of second bottle, it was found from outside that there was some foreign matter in the bottle i.e. web (Jalla), which was visible to the naked eye and the contents of the bottle were contaminated which could create health hazards. The contents of the bottle had become unhygienic. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 and showed him the bottle but he stated that he purchases the bottles from wholesale dealers only and sell it to the consumers or general public in the same condition in which it is purchased and, therefore, he was not responsible for the contents of the bottle, as the bottle was air tight and sealed as received from the wholesale dealer of the area. It was pleaded by the complainant that had the contents of the bottle been consumed without seeing the foreign material, it might have adversely affected his health. Therefore, he filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.

3. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 filed written reply in which it was pleaded that the product of opposite party No.1 was best for use for 3 months from the date of manufacturing. The said product was manufactured by them on 28.5.2010 vide batch No.PIBN480 and the same had already expired on 27.8.2010. In fact the same had been purchased by the complainant without checking the expiry date of the same. It was sold after 5 months from the date of manufacturingwhereas it was best for use upto 3 months. Therefore, opposite party No.1 was not responsible for the contents of the Sprite bottle. It was further pleaded that the complainant had never purchased two bottles of the Sprite from it nor it was selling the same in retail. It is preparing the lot containing thousands of the bottles at a time and there cannot be any chance of any alleged foreign matter in any of the bottle out of the total lot. They are using pet bottles and the bottles once used are never reused by it and rather each and every time fresh bottles are being used and the same are duly tested in the laboratory. The expired product of the opposite party is taken back by the replying opposite party from its authorized dealers and disposed of. In fact there is no packing of the Sprite in the bottle of 1.5 Ltrs.

4. Opposite party No.2 filed separate written reply admitting that he was a retailer/seller and not authorized stockist of opposite party No.1 and purchases the Sprite bottles in small quantity as per the demand and sell the same to the consumers. It was admitted that the complainant purchased two Sprite bottles from him against payment of Rs.110/- and the bill was not issued for the same as the bill was not given to him by the dealer of opposite party No.1. It was pleaded that he was not responsible in any manner because it sells the product in packed conditions as received from opposite party No.1. Since he is not the manufacturer or supplier but only a small shop keeper and has a small margin, so he cannot be fastened with any liability.

5. The parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

6. The learned District Forum, after going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, accepted the complaint with cost of Rs.2,000/- against opposite party No.1 and directed it to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation. The complaint was also accepted against opposite party No.2 with a cost of Rs.1,000/-

7. Aggrieved by this order, opposite party No.1 has come up in this appeal.

8. It was submitted by the learned counsel for opposite party No.1 that the learned District Forum has failed to appreciate the fact that the bottle was from batch No.PIBN480, the manufacturing date of which was 25.5.2010. It was mentioned on the bottle that the same was best for use for 3 months but the complainant purchased the same on 23.10.2010 after the expiry of that period. Opposite party No.1 is manufacturing the products which are required to be free from all types of hazards to life and safety but it is not responsible for the product which was purchased by the complainant after the expiry date. It was further submitted that the foreign substance in the bottle may be the result of non-following the instructions of the opposite party which are duly printed on the bottles i.e. to keep away from sunlight, to store in a cool and dry place etc.

9. We have thoroughly gone through the pleadings of the parties and have carefully perused the evidence on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the opposite party No.1.

10. The bottle of Sprite in question was having batch No.PIBN480 and manufacturing date as 25.5.2010. It is mentioned on the bottle itself that it is best for use for 3 months i.e. upto 24.8.2010 whereas the same was purchased by the complainant on 23.10.2010 i.e. after almost two months of that date of expiry. Opposite party No.1 cannot be held responsible for the contaminated contents of the bottle after the date of expiry. This bottle should not have been sold by opposite party No.2 to the complainant. Even though the complainant was required to be vigilant and check the manufacturing date and expiry date before purchase but the failure to do so does not give any right to opposite party No.2 to sell an expired product. The expired product is never considered to be safe for human consumption. Hence opposite party No.2 is held responsible for selling expired and substandard product to the complainant.

11. The learned District Forum has held that the bottle was checked by it and found that same was fully tight and, therefore, no foreign material could enter into it even after expiry date. Hence opposite party No.1 was also held responsible for the existence of foreign material i.e. web (Jalla), which was visible with the naked eye. Worm of black colour was floating inside the bottle. This observation of the learned District Forum is patently incorrect. Any consumable product is good for human consumption for a specific period of time and after a specific period it is declared unsafe and due to this reason only, the date of expiry/best before date is mentioned on the product. The consumable products are declared unsafe because its ingredients get degenerated or decomposed after some time and the fungus (Jalla) may be generated even in the sealed container. Otherwise the same would be declared fit for all time to come.

12. In the instant case, the Sprite bottle purchased by the complainant was proved to be “Best before” upto 24.8.2010 but the same was sold by opposite party No.2 on 23.10.2010 almost after two months of the expiry of “Best before” date. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India has notified Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labeling) Regulations, 2011, in which the term “Best Before” has been defined as under:-

“”Best before” means the date which signifies the end of the period under any stated storage conditions during which the food shall remain fully marketable and shall retain any specific qualities for which tacit or express claims have been made and beyond that date, the food may still be perfectly safe to consume, though its quality may have diminished. However the food shall not be sold if at any stage the product becomes unsafe.”

13. Evidently the Sprite bottles were not marketable beyond 24.8.2010 but opposite party No.2 sold it to the complainant two months after the said date when Jalla (Web) was observed by the complainant in it. However, when same was inspected by the District Forum on 7.2.2011, worms of black colour were also found, which was probably because it was not kept in stated storage conditions. When the Jalla was visible with naked eye in the bottle on 23.10.2010, it should have been returned back to the manufacturer instead of selling the same to the complainant. The manufacturer of a product can, in no way, be held responsible for sale of defective product by a retailer after its marketable date.

14. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeal of the appellant/opposite party No.1 is accepted and the complaint of the respondent No.1/complainant qua the opposite party No.1 is dismissed. However, the order of the learned District Forum qua the opposite party No.2 is affirmed and upheld. No order is made as to costs.

15. The appellant/opposite party No.1 deposited an amount of Rs.6,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, alongwith interest, which has accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant/opposite party No.1, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft, after expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum.

16. The arguments in the case were heard on 4.6.2013 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.

17. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period because of the heavy pendency of the court cases.

(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER June 06, 2013 VINAY

கடலூர் நவீன அரிசி ஆலைகளில் உணவு பாதுகாப்பு அதிகாரி ஆய்வு

https://foodsafetynews.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/170e8-28_03_2015_105_019_001.jpg?w=595

கடலூர்:

கடலூரில் உள்ள தனியார் நவீன அரிசி ஆலைகளில் உணவு பாதுகாப்பு அதிகாரி ஆய்வு செய்தார். கடலூர், மஞ்சக்குப்பம் பகுதியில் நவீன அரிசி ஆலைகள் உள்ளன. இந்த ஆலைகளில் நேற்று மாவட்ட உணவு பாதுகாப்பு அதிகாரி ராஜா, வட்ட அதிகாரிகள் நல்லதம்பி, நந்தகுமார், சுப்ரமணியன் ஆகியோர் ஆய்வு செய்தனர். ஆய்வின் போது, ஆலைகளில் உற்பத்தி தேதி, காலாவதி தேதி, பேட்ச் எண் குறிப்பிடப்படாமல் இருந்தது கண்டறியப்பட்டு; அவசியம் அரிசி மூட்டைகளில் இவைகளைக் குறிப்பிட வேண்டும் என அறிவுறுத்தப்பட்டது. மேலும், நெல்லை ஊற வைப்பதற்கான சுத்தமான தண்ணீரைப் பயன்படுத்த வேண்டும். பயன்படுத்திய தண்ணீரை மீண்டும் பயன்படுத்தக் கூடாது எனவும் அறிவுறுத்தப்பட்டது. ஆலைகளில் ரேஷன் அரிசி இருப்பு வைத்து பாலீஷ் செய்யப்படுகிறதா எனவும் ஆய்வு செய்தனர்.

FSS Act – Jharkhand HC – Lodoo sample fails – anticipatory bail dismissed to FBO -Gulam Kadir Alias Asgar Ali vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 1 September, 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               A.B.A. No.190 of 2014

             Vijay Prasad Gupta                        .....   Petitioner
                                         Versus
             The State of Jharkhand                    ....      Opposite Party

             CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA

             For the Petitioner       :     Mr. Anil Kumar
             For the State            :     A. P.P.
                                      -----
                                   3/01.9.2014

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with C.G. Case No.06 of 2013, for the alleged offences under Section 3 (zz)(iii),(viii) of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006, Section 59(iii) read with Section 26 and 27 of the said Act.

From the offence report, it appears that the petitioner was running a hotel, from where a sample of lodoo was taken for analysis by the Food Analyst and it was found that the said lodoo was adultrated and unsafe, as it contained non-permitted synthetic colouring matter, which were harmful substance and detrimental to health.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has prayed for anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. In the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail anticipatory bail stand dismissed.

(H. C. Mishra, J) R.Kumar

FSS Act – Madhya Pradesh HC – Qualification of Food Safety Officer case – Sewa Nivart Khadya Aoshadhi Avam … vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 September, 2014

Writ Appeal No. 711 / 2014. 08/09/2014.

     Shri D. K. Dixit, learned counsel for appellant.

     Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for

     respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 / State on advance notice.

     Shri R. K. Verma, learned Senior counsel with Shri

     Aditya Khandekar, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.

     This appeal has been filed by the appellant who is

     Intervener in W.P.No.8485/14 aggrieved by an order dated

     25.7.2014 passed in the aforesaid writ petition.

     Facts

, in nutshell, go to show that respondent no. 4 Shri S.P. Shrivastava was initially appointed as a Food Inspector vide order passed by the State Government on 2.7.1997. The petitioner and one organization namely Nagrik Upbhokta Margdarshak Manch challenged this appointment of respondent no. 4 Shri S.P. Shrivastava as a Food Inspector mainly on the ground that he is not qualified to be appointed to the said post and when the said W.P.No.3031/14 came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court on 2.2.2005 it was pointed out by learned Government Advocate that the impugned order dated 2.7.1997 appointing Shri S.P. Shrivastaba as a Food Inspector has been withdrawn by the State Government on 14.1.2005. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous and liberty was granted to Shri S.P. Shrivastava to challenge notification dated 14.1.2005. However, nothing was done for a period of about 9 years and thereafter, it seems that again after the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 came into force, Shri S.P. Shrivastava was appointed as a Food Inspector on 2.6.2014 vide Annexure-P/10 available in the record of writ petition. Subsequently, when it was found that Shri S.P.Shrivastava has not undergone training and he cannot be posted as a Food Inspector, then the matter came up to this Court at the instance of Shri S.P. Shrivastava in W.P.No.8485/14 and when this writ petition came up for hearing before the learned Writ Court on 25.7.2014, statement was made by the learned Government Advocate that steps will be taken for sending Shri S.P. Shrivastava for training and notification will be issued at the earliest. Even though, this order was passed on 25.7.2014, Shri S.P. Shrivastava being aggrieved by the same had filed a writ appeal no. 615/14 and when writ appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court on 14.8.2014 it was found that Shri S.P. Shrivastava has obtained the aforesaid training as required and his case was under consideration for permitting him to work as a Food Inspector. Accordingly, on 14.8.2014 writ appeal was also disposed of directing the State Government to take action for permitting Shri S.P. Shrivastava to work as a Food Safety Officer within a period of 30 days. It now transpires that after the subsequent order passed in the writ appeal on 14.8.2014, action has been taken for appointing Shri S.P. Shrivastava and permitting him to work as a Food Safety Officer. Be that as it may be, grievance of the present appellant who was intervener in W.P.No.8485/2014 that Shri S.P. Shrivastava is not entitled to work as a Food Safety Officer. It is pointed out that he does not fulfill the requisite qualification and criteria laid down under the Food Safety and Standards Act and the rules framed thereunder and therefore, his appointment itself is unsustainable.

The appellant herein is intervener. He has never challenged the order of appointment of Shri S.P. Shrivastava passed in the year 2014. If the appellant feels that appointment of Shri S.P. Shrivastava / respondent no. 4 as a Food Safety Officer is contrary to the statutory provisions, he is required to challenge the same in accordance with law where all the questions can be considered and decision taken. In the present proceedings which are arising out of the order dated 25.7.2014 passed in W.P.No.8485/14, where appellant herein is only a intervener and as a intervener he cannot seek any relief for them from this Court. That being so, without challenging the order of appointment of Shri S.P. Shrivastava no relief can be granted to the present appellant in these proceedings. That apart, it may be taken note that during the course of hearing of the present writ appeal, Shri R.K. Verma, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4 raised objection to say that the appellant Association is an Association of retired Food Inspectors and they have filed a writ petition mala fide and he tried to justify the appointment of Shri S.P. Shrivastava as a Food Safety Officer. Be that as it may be, the fact remains that since the appellant being an intervener in these proceedings cannot go behind the question of justification, tenability, legality or otherwise of the order of appointment of Shri S.P. Shrivastava. If the appellant has any grievance with regard to appointment of Shri S.P. Shrivastava, he is required to challenge the same in accordance with law only in those proceedings question can be considered. For the present, finding no case is made out at the instance of the appellant herein, this appeal is disposed of with liberty to the appellant to take fresh steps, in case, he has any grievance with regard to appointment of Shri S.P. Shrivastava, in accordance with law.

Appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid.

(Rajendra Menon)                               (Anil Sharma)
    Judge                                         Judge