Bombay High Court criticizes FDA and allows resumption of operations for five food establishments

The Bombay High Court overturned the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) decision to suspend food licenses at dining establishments located within the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA). MCA challenged this action in the High Court, which ordered a re-inspection.

The new inspection found compliance with approximately 98 percent of the rules. Following this, the Court ruled to immediately revoke the old order suspending the licenses, noting that actions should be balanced, as they say: 'Don't chop down a sword to kill a mosquito.'

The FDA had inspected the dining facilities on the MCA premises, after which their licenses were suspended on August 21st. MCA appealed this decision to the High Court. On August 25th, the Court heard the case and ordered a re-inspection of these establishments. The FDA submitted a new report to the Court on August 29th, revealing compliance with about 98% of the established standards.

Upon receiving the new report, the Court demanded the cancellation of the suspension order issued on August 21st. The Court acknowledged that if the re-inspection showed significant adherence to the rules, maintaining the license suspension was unwarranted. During the hearings, the Court also questioned FDA officials about why they had not properly followed the Court's directives. The Court deemed this decision hasty.

The Court emphasized that strict adherence to hygiene and food safety regulations is necessary, but any action must correspond to the seriousness of the situation. Explaining this, the Court used the phrase 'Don't chop down a sword to kill a mosquito,' implying that minor violations should not lead to excessively harsh penalties. During the proceedings, the Court also questioned whether officials considered themselves above the law. The Court noted that the administration must consider the entire context when making decisions.

The Court also criticized the manner of work of the relevant official. The Court stated that the official made the decision thoughtlessly and without knowledge of the laws. During the hearing, the Court sharply remarked, saying: 'You do not understand our orders, nor do you understand the law. You don't even read your rules, but just take measures.' The Court added that its directives are formulated in simple and understandable language to avoid any difficulties in interpretation.

In conclusion of the hearings, the Court suggested an idea to the FDA: for large restaurants and dining establishments, a separate webpage could be created. On this page, customers could share their opinions regarding cleanliness, quality, and taste of the food. This would provide people with a platform to voice their views, helping entrepreneurs address shortcomings. The Court clearly stated that implementing food safety standards is mandatory, but the goal of the actions should be improvement. It stressed that closing a license due to every minor inaccuracy is not the correct approach.

Tukaram Munde, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Control Department of Maharashtra (FDA), issued a warning that the inspection of advertising for prohibited goods may affect far more people than just the brand's famous representatives.

Munde told the news agency PTI that 'no one will be spared,' just one day after notifications were sent to Bollywood actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn, and Tiger Shroff regarding their participation in the advertisement for the Vimal Elaichi brand.

The Bombay High Court ruled to issue a stern reprimand to the Food and Drug Administration of Maharashtra (FDA) and ordered it to pay compensation of 500,000 rupees to a confectionery shop from Pune. The court accused the FDA of oppressing citizens and administrative arbitrariness.

The bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Gughe and Justice Gautam A. Ankada, annulled the order suspending the operations of 'Gurnunak Dairy and Sweets'. The High Court emphasized that it was completely unjustified to keep the shop closed for over a month despite receiving 98 percent marks during the cleanliness inspection.

The court entirely rejected the FDA's argument that the shop remained closed pending an internal appeal, calling it a 'weak excuse'. Furthermore, the shop was allowed to resume its operations immediately.

While considering the case, the bench noted: 'This is pure arbitrariness. This is extremely strange policy. Better not to say much. As soon as the shop is given the green light with 98 percent marks, you tell them to file an appeal. What is this? This is simply oppression of citizens.'

Initially, following complaints of food poisoning and sanitation issues on June 12, the FDA suspended the confectionery's license. In response, the owner challenged this decision on June 15 and submitted a report on compliance with all conditions on July 7.

Four days later, during a re-inspection, the shop was awarded 35 out of 36 marks, confirming a hygiene standard of 98%. Despite such a high score, the FDA refused to reinstate the license, forcing the owners to approach the High Court.

Advocate Abhijit Desai, representing the applicant, informed the court that due to the illegal closure of the shop for 34 days, the small business incurred direct financial losses of approximately 8.5 million rupees.

Although the High Court acknowledged that maintaining food safety standards is the duty of the FDA, it also noted that the department had exceeded its authority. To compensate for the losses, the court ordered the FDA to deposit the sum of 5 million rupees within 30 days.