MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Monday directed the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to pay ₹ 5 lakh to a sweet shop for keeping its food licence suspended even though the shop was declared 98% hygiene compliant during a re-inspection.
The court said the continuation of the license suspension amounted to “torture and harassment”.
“This is harassment. They’re losing on business. Who will compensate for the loss,” a division bench of acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad asked the FDA officials. However, the petitioner’s food licence suspension was not revoked, prompting it to move the high court. The pending appeal has been heard and the final order is awaited. “This is plain harassment and simple perversity; absolutely strange policies. “What is this? This is absolute torture”, the bench remarked. Someone in FDA stood up for the first time but this is torture.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Gurunanak Dairy and Sweets in Pune, which had challenged the FDA’s suspension of its food licence on June 12 following a food poisoning complaint. After the sweet shop submitted a compliance report on July 9, a re-inspection was carried out, and the FDA issued a 98% compliance report on July 13. Represented by advocates Abhijeet Desai, Mohini Rehpade, Vijay Singh and Deepesh Ramrakhiani, the petitioner informed the court that the 34-day closure caused a financial loss of ₹ 8.74 lakh to the business. The court, however, questioned the rationale behind the continued suspension when the establishment has already achieved 98% compliance. Once you grant a 98% compliance report, how can you suspend the licence,” the judges asked, adding that despite the compliance the establishment was required to appeal before the FDA commissioner. You should have immediately revoked the suspension of the licence once you noticed 98% compliance.”
“You want us to believe that there’s no malice on your mind,” the judges wondered. “Despite the high-level compliance, the food licence has not been revoked,” the lawyers said. Observing that FDA’s stand appeared to be mere “verbosity”, the court said, “Your intention is laudable, but you are going overboard.
The FDA argued before the court that the food licence had not been revoked as the petitioner had appealed before the FDA commissioner.
