Bombay High Court

UDUPI SWAAD RESTAURANTversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTATION AND ORS

Decided: 16 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative statutory appeal under Section 32(4) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

Summary

The petitioner, Udupi Swaad Restaurant, filed a writ petition challenging an improvement notice issued under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable because the Act provides a specific appeal mechanism under Section 32(4). The Court examined whether the existence of an alternative statutory remedy barred the writ petition. It held that the petitioner should pursue the appeal before the Commissioner of Food Safety and that the writ petition was therefore unnecessary. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to file the appeal and seek a stay, and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when an alternative efficacious statutory remedy is available under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

Legislation cited

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 — s. 32(2), 32(4), 32(5)

Subjects

writ petition
maintainability
alternative remedy
Food Safety and Standards Act
improvement notice
appeal
public health

Judgment

(34)-WP-12006-26.doc

PANCHAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Digitally
signed by
BALAJI
WRIT PETITION NO. 12006 OF 2026
BALAJI GOVINDRAO
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
PANCHAL Date:
2026.09.17
14:47:46
+0530
Udupi Swaad Restaurant ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
...
Mr. Vishal Hegde a/w Ms. Anuja Apte i/by Samudra Legal
LLP, for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, GP a/w Mr. B. V. Samant, Addl. GP & Ms.
Pooja Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.
...

CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.

DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

P.C.:
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the
Respondents raised a preliminary objection to the
maintainability of instant proceeding. He would submit that
the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is a self contained
Code, wherein the proceeding has been initiated under Section
32(2) of the said Act. The Petitioner has an alternate
efficacious remedy to press an Appeal under Section 32(4)
against the Impugned Decision of the said Respondents. Once
an alternative efficacious statutory remedy is available to the
Petitioner, there is no reason or occasion to bypass the
remedy. Be that as it may. We are not inclined to entertain the

1
(34)-WP-12006-26.doc

instant Petition on the ground of an alternate efficacious
statutory remedy of Appeal available to the Petitioner. Section
32 of the said Act is to be reproduced hereunder :-

“32. Improvement notices.- (1) If the Designated Officer
has reasonable ground for believing that any food
business operator has failed to comply with any
regulations to which this section applies, he may, by a
notice served on that food business operator (in this Act
referred to as an “improvement notice”)–
(a) state the grounds for believing that the food
business operator has failed to comply with the
regulations;
(b) specify the matters which constitute the food
business operator’s failure so to comply;
(c) specify the measures which, in the opinion of the
said Authority, the food business operator must take,
in order to secure compliance; and
(d) require the food business operator to take those
measures, or measures which are at least equivalent
to them, within a reasonable period (not being less
than fourteen days) as may be specified in the notice.
(2) If the food business operator fails to comply with an
improvement notice, his licence may be suspended.
(3) If the food business operator still fails to comply with
the improvement notice, the Designated Officer may, after
giving the licensee an opportunity to show cause, cancel
the licence granted to him:
Provided that the Designated Officer may suspend any
licence forthwith in the interest of public health for reasons
to be recorded in writing.
(4) Any person who is aggrieved by –
(a) an improvement notice; or
(b) refusal to issue a certificate as to improvement; or
(c) cancellation or suspension or revocation of licence
under this Act, may appeal to the Commissioner of
Food Safety whose decision thereon, shall be final.
(5) The period within which such an appeal may be
brought shall be –
(a) fifteen days from the date on which notice of the
decision was served on the person desiring to appeal;
or

2
(34)-WP-12006-26.doc

(b) in the case of an appeal under sub-section (1), the
said period or the period specified in the improvement
notice, whichever expires earlier.
Explanation – For the purpose of this sub-section, the
making of the complaint shall be deemed to be the bringing
of the appeal.”

3. Considering the factual situation as emerged, the
substantial justice would be subserved in case Petitioner
prefers Appeal along with the Stay Application before the
appellate forum within one week from uploading of this order.
We expect the Appellate Authority shall dispose of the stay
application in further two weeks thereafter. The Appeal may
also to be decided on merits expeditiously, preferably within
six weeks from date of uploading of this order, without
granting unnecessary adjournment to the parties.

4. We further observe that whatever grounds as have
been urged before this Court, can be raised by the Petitioner
including the relief/s before the Appellate Authority.

5. With the aforesaid directions, Writ Petition is
Disposed Of.

[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…