Alternative appellate remedy before Central Food Laboratory bars writ relief in an adulteration dispute.

An aggrieved importer challenging a finding of adulteration was required to pursue the designated appellate remedy before the Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata, because the relevant public notice had expressly provided that forum. The writ petition was therefore not entertained on merits, and the petitioner was relegated to the appellate process instead of seeking writ relief. The Court further indicated that, if an appeal is filed, it should be dealt with by an officer other than the one who earlier passed the order, and with reference to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Rules framed under it.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the petitioner had an available appellate remedy before the Central Food Laboratory in relation to the finding of adulteration.

Analysis: The dispute concerned a technical determination as to whether the imported goods were adulterated. Since the relevant public notice had designated the Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata as the appellate laboratory, the proper course for an aggrieved party was to invoke that remedy rather than pursue writ relief. The Court also directed that, if an appeal was filed, the matter should be considered as an appellate exercise by an officer other than the one who had earlier passed the order, and the decision should address the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Rules framed thereunder.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy before the Central Food Laboratory.

---