The Bombay High Court has pulled up the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over its decision to keep a Pune sweet shop closed even after a follow-up inspection found the establishment had met almost all food safety requirements.
The court cancelled the suspension of Gurunanak Dairy and Sweets and directed the Maharashtra FDA to pay ₹5 lakh in compensation to the business. The shop had remained shut for 34 days after its food licence was suspended.
Why Was the Pune Sweet Shop Shut?
The FDA had suspended the shop’s food licence on June 12 following complaints related to food poisoning.
During its inspection, FDA officials reportedly found shortcomings involving sanitation, hygiene and maintenance at the establishment.
The sweet shop subsequently approached FDA Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe and submitted a compliance report explaining the corrective measures taken to address the deficiencies.
Follow-Up Inspection Found 98% Compliance
A fresh inspection was carried out on July 13, just four days after the shop submitted its compliance report.
The inspection gave the establishment 35 out of 36 marks, translating to around 98% compliance with the food safety requirements.
Despite the improved inspection result, the licence suspension was not immediately withdrawn.
This became the central issue before the Bombay High Court.
High Court Questions FDA’s Decision
Hearing the petition filed by Gurunanak Dairy and Sweets, a bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad questioned why the FDA continued with the suspension after the establishment had achieved such a high compliance score.
The bench described the FDA’s approach as “plain and simple perversity” and criticised what it called a “strange policy”.
The court said that once the re-inspection established 98% compliance, the department should have acted on that finding instead of leaving the business to pursue another legal process.
‘What Is This? Torturing Citizens?’
During the hearing, Acting Chief Justice Ghuge questioned the regulator’s approach and said:“Once you clear with 98%, you say, now, go and file an appeal. What is this? Torturing citizens?”
The bench also observed:“You should have immediately revoked the suspension of the licence once you noticed 98% compliance.”
The court acknowledged that the FDA’s intention to ensure food safety was valid but said the department had gone too far in continuing the suspension.
Sweet Shop Claims ₹8.74 Lakh Loss
The shop’s lawyer, Abhijeet Desai, told the court that the establishment had been forced to remain closed for 34 days.
According to the petition, the closure resulted in an estimated revenue loss of ₹8.74 lakh.
The lawyer also argued that neither the inspection report nor the suspension order specifically linked any food item sold by the shop to illness or an adverse health consequence.
FDA Defends Delay
The FDA’s lawyer told the court that the shop’s appeal had already been heard and the matter had been reserved for judgment on August 11.
However, the explanation did not satisfy the bench.
The High Court subsequently quashed the suspension order, allowing Gurunanak Dairy and Sweets to resume its operations, and directed the FDA to pay ₹5 lakh compensation within 30 days.
Bombay HC Has Earlier Questioned FDA
The latest order is not the first time the Bombay High Court has criticised the FDA over the handling of suspended food licences.
Earlier this month, the court had questioned the department after a re-inspection found Hotel Pawan Bar and Restaurant in Navi Mumbai fully compliant with food safety requirements, yet its suspension had not been revoked.
The court had also criticised the regulator in July over what it described as a selective approach towards food establishments, including questions about action against canteens operating in government and semi-government premises.
The latest case therefore highlights the balance regulators must maintain between protecting food safety and ensuring that businesses are not kept closed unnecessarily after they have corrected identified violations.
