Click the Play button to listen to article

Observing that while the Food & Drugs Administration's (FDA) intention is 'laudable' but the authority has somewhat went overboard, the Bombay High Court on Monday (July 17) ordered the authority to pay a compensation of Rs 5 lakh to a Pune-based sweet shop, which despite being found to be 98% hygiene compliant, yet its licence was suspended and the same was not restored. 

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad therefore, quashed and set aside an order passed by the FDA by which it suspended the licence of Gurunanak Dairy & Sweets, a retailer shop in Pune. The bench has ordered the outlet to continue with its operations, which were halted due to the licence suspension for nearly 34 days.

When the matter was called out, the FDA counsel informed the bench that on June 12, the licence was suspended owing to hygiene issues at the outlet. However, the petitioner-shop filed an appeal before the FDA Commissioner and even furnished a compliance report on July 9, post which a re-inspection was done and the outlet was found to be 98% hygiene compliant. 

However, the bench noted that despite giving 98% score to the outlet on re-inspection, the FDA did not revoke the licence suspension on the ground that the appeal before the FDA Commissioner was still closed for orders on August 11. 

Advocate Abhijeet Desai for the petitioner, meanwhile, informed the judges that the closure of nearly 34 days have cost the owners a revenue loss of more than Rs 8 lakh, as it usually earns around Rs 25,000 on a daily basis. 

However, the judges seemed to be unimpressed with the contention of the FDA counsel that despite finding the petitioner's 98% hygiene compliance, their suspension of licence cannot be revoked as their appeal is pending to be decided by the FDA chief. 

"This is harassment. Now they have lost business from June to July. Who will compensate for this? Your Mantralaya canteens were 98 per cent compliant, but did you suspended their licence? No. Then why suspend the licence of the petitioners? Who will compensate the loss? You want us to believe that there's no malice on your mind? This is just verbosity. You are arguing because you are supposed to. You have 98% compliance and yet you suspended their licence? Even a traffic police gives a challan, take the payment and let the car go," ACJ Ghughe observed. 

Further, to defend its case, the FDA Counsel attempted to cite a Government Resolution (GR) which provides that if an appeal is filed, revocation of licence suspension cannot be done by the officers till the appeal is decided. 

Irked over this, ACJ Ghuge remarked, "Absolute strange policies. Once you clear some outlet by giving them 98% compliance, they still have to file an appeal? This is absolute torture."

With these observations, the bench opined that just because an appeal is pending despite the petitioner's being found to be 98% hygiene compliant, the pendency of the appeal would not be an impediment for the outlet to operate.

It therefore, quashed the order suspending the licence and further issued a directive to the State FDA to pay Rs 5 lakh to the petitioner outlet to compensate the losses. 

Case Title: Gurunanak Dairy Sweets vs Union of India 

Tags: