Bombay High Court
M/S HOTEL ALANKAR THR. ITS SOLE PROPRIETORversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. THE SECRETARY FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION DETP. AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The suspension of the licence was not justified after the petitioner demonstrated exemplar compliance, and therefore the appellate order was set aside and the licence restored.
Summary
Hotel Alankar, operated by Dipak Arbune, held a valid FSSAI licence that was suspended on 8 July 2026 by the Food Safety Officer under Section 32(3) of the Food Safety Act due to serious non‑compliances, including sale of alcoholic beverages without licence and unsafe cooking oil. The petitioner appealed the suspension, but the appellate authority dismissed the appeal, relying on the original inspection findings. A re‑inspection on 31 July 2026 showed the establishment had rectified most deficiencies and achieved a 97% compliance score, yet the appellate authority maintained the suspension citing continued breach of licence conditions and operation during suspension. The High Court examined whether the continued suspension was justified in light of the improved compliance and held that suspension can only be sustained for public‑health hazards, which were no longer present. Consequently, the Court quashed the appellate order, revoked the suspension, and restored the licence, directing the petitioner to undertake not to sell unlicensed products.
Issues considered
- Whether the suspension of the FSSAI licence under Section 32(3) of the Food Safety Act remains justified after the petitioner achieved 97% compliance in a re‑inspection.
- Whether the continued operation of the establishment during suspension warrants continuation of the suspension or merely a penalty under Sections 55 and 63.
- Whether non‑compliance with licence conditions relating to product categories and technical personnel can justify indefinite suspension despite remedial actions.
Legislation cited
- Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 — s. 18, 3(1)(zz)(xi), 32(1), 32(3), 32(4), 55, 63
- Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011 — s. Condition No.3, Condition No.4, Condition No.7, Schedule IV
Subjects
- Food Safety Act
- FSSAI licence suspension
- public health
- re‑inspection compliance
- improvement notice
- Section 32
- Section 55
- Section 63
- Food Safety and Standards Regulations
Judgment
2026:BHC-KOL:8650-DB
wp 3806-26 (1).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3806 OF 2026
Along With
INTERIM APPLICATION [ST.] NO. 7950 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 3806 OF 2026
1) Hotel Alankar ]
Through its Sole Proprietor ]
Dipak Sopanrao Arbune. ]
]
Having Address at MIL. No.33/B,
]
Shaniwar Peth, Near S.T.Stand, ]
A/p-Karad, Satara – 415110. ...Petitioner.
]
Versus
1) State of Maharashtra ]
Through The Principal Secretary, ]
Food and Drug Administration Department. ]
]
2) The Commissioner, ]
Food & Drug Administration, ]
BKC, Mumbai -400051. ]
]
3) Assistant Commissioner (Food) ]
and Designated Officer, ]
Food and Drug Administration (M.S.), ]
]
Sadar Bazar, Satara – 415 001.
]
4) I.S. Hawaldar, Food Safety Officer, ]
Food and Drug Administration (M.S.), ]
Satara – 415001. ]
]
5) Union of India, ]
Through the Secretary of Ministry of Health ]
and Family Welfare. ]
]
6) Food Safety and Standards Authority of ]
India, New Delhi. ] ...Respondents.
Patil-SR (ch) 1 of 17
wp 3806-26 (1).doc
——————
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, Ms. Shubhra Swami, Ms. Meghna Vijan and Ms. Rohini
i/b Abhay Bichakar for the Petitioner.
Ms. T. J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Rakesh Bhatkar for the Respondent No. 5.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : September 8, 2026.
JUDGMENT : (Per Sharmila U Deshmukh J) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with consent taken up
for final disposal.
2. The challenge which was initially raised in the present petition
was to the order of suspension of license dated 8 th July 2026 issued by
the Respondent No.3–Assistant Commissioner (Food) and Designated
Officer and for revocation of the suspension of Petitioner’s FSSAI
License in light of the 97% compliance recorded in the re-inspection
report dated 31st July 2026.
3. During the pendency of the petition, the appeal filed by the
Petitioner before the Appellate Authority against the order of
suspension dated 8th July, 2026, came to be dismissed. By the captioned
interim application, the Petitioner has sought leave to amend the
petition to challenge the appellate authority’s order dated 19 th August
2026 along with the suspension order dated 8 th July 2026. Considering
that the proposed amendment seeks to challenge the subsequent order
Patil-SR (ch) 2 of 17
wp 3806-26 (1).doc
of dismissal of Appeal, interim application is allowed. Amendment to be
carried out within a period of two weeks from today.
4. The facts as set out in the petition are that the Petitioner’s
establishment holds a valid license under the Food Safety and Standards
Act, 2006 [for short “the Food Safety Act”], which was issued on 17th
July 2022 and valid upto 16th July 2027. On 7th July 2026, the
Respondent No.4-Food Safety Officer conducted a surprise inspection
of the establishment of Petitioner and generated an inspection report
recording defects, partial compliances, non compliances and allotted
final score of 75 marks out of 110 marks, constituting 69% with the
remark “non compliance”. During inspection, food samples were drawn,
seized and sealed for testing and analysis. On 8 th July 2026, the
Respondent No.3 passed an order of forthwith suspension of license
granted to the Petitioner’s establishment, exercising powers under
Section 32(3) of the Food Safety Act directing the Petitioner to
forthwith cease and desist from carrying on food business activity.
Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred a statutory appeal under
Section 32(4) of the Food Safety Act before the Respondent No.2. It is
pleaded that the captioned Petition is being filed in view of the
subsequent re-inspection of the Petitioner’s establishment carried out
by the Respondent No.3 wherein Petitioner scored 106 out of 110
marks i.e. 97%.
Patil-SR (ch) 3 of 17
wp 3806-26 (1).doc
5. The amended pleading is that the Appellate Authority’s order is
inconsistent with the findings recorded in the re-inspection report
dated 31st July, 2026. The Petitioner had taken steps for applying for
modification of the license, but the online portal is locked by reason of
the suspension of license. The non compliances recorded in the
inspection of 7th July, 2026 were rectified and noted in the subsequent
inspection of 31st July, 2026 warranting revocation of suspension.
6. In the reply affidavit, it is contended that the Petitioner had not
submitted a response to the improvement notice, before the
subsequent inspection conducted on 7th July, 2026, which disclosed
deficiencies and circumstances requiring immediate statutory
intervention in public health. The inspection revealed sale of products
for which license was not obtained, unhygienic conditions on floor of
establishment’s production area, non segregation of storage and frying
machine for vegetarian and non-vegetarian food items, non compliance
with discharge norms, uncovered storage of food items and trash bins.
The Food Analyst’s report in respect of used cooking oil sample has
tested “Unsafe”. Subsequent to the passing of suspension order, during
inspection conducted on 13th July, 2026, the Petitioner’s establishment
was found to be operational. During pendency of appeal, re-inspection
was ordered on 31st July, 2026, when it was noticed that most of the
deficiencies were rectified, however the business operations were
Patil-SR (ch) 4 of 17
wp 3806-26 (1).doc
continued which is breach punishable under Section 55 of Food Safety
Act and hence the Appeal came to be dismissed.
7. Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner
would submit that the impugned appellate order does not take into
consideration the re-inspection report of 31 st July 2026. He has taken
this Court in detail through the order of appellate authority in order to
contend that though submissions were canvassed as regards the re-
inspection conducted on 31st July 2026, the findings and reasons take
into consideration the suspension order dated 8th July 2026 and there is
no consideration of re-inspection dated 31 st July 2026. He would
further point out that the observation as regards the Petitioner’s
establishment being operated even during the period of suspension
would invite penalty under Sections 55 and 63 of the Food Safety Act,
and not upholding the order of suspension. He would further point out
that the Hon’ble Division Bench of of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in
Wardha Tahsil Go-Dugdha Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd, Wardha v.
State of Maharashtra1 has considered identical deficiencies, as are
noted in the present case and has held that those deficiencies do not
fall in the category of exceptional circumstances.
8. Per contra Ms. Tejas Kapre, learned AGP would take this Court
through the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1
1 WP No. 4542 of 2026 dtd 7th July 2026.
Patil-SR (ch) 5 of 17
wp 3806-26 (1).doc
to 4. She would submit that the circumstances leading to the
suspension were serious breaches, as the establishment had earlier
been inspected on 19th July, 2025 and violations of provisions under
Part-2 and Part-5 of Schedule IV of the Food Safety and Standards
(Licensing And Registration of Food Business) Regulations, 2011 had
been noticed and an improvement notice dated 30 th July 2025 had been
issued to the Petitioner, to which there is no response. She would
submit that there was subsequent inspection carried out on 7 th July
2026 which disclosed further deficiencies and therefore suspension was
imposed. She would point out that during the inspection it was
observed that though the Petitioner’s establishment had obtained
license for sale of ready-to-eat food products, the Petitioner’s
establishment was found selling items such as liquor, cold drinks and
packaged drinking water without the necessary product categories
endorsed on the license, which constitutes serious violation.
9. She would point out paragraph 19 of the affidavit-in-reply to
demonstrate the deficiencies noted during inspection on 7 th July, 2026.
She submits that the food samples collected in the inspection of 7 th July
2026 were forwarded for analysis to the Food Analyst, which samples
were reported as “unsafe”. She submits that though the license was
suspended, it was found that the business activity at Petitioner’s
establishment was continued. She would further submit that as there
Patil-SR (ch) 6 of 17
wp 3806-26 (1).doc
was persistent breach of directions given by the licensing authority,
which is punishable offence under Section 55 of the Food Safety Act,
the appeal came to be dismissed. She has taken this Court in detail
through the findings of the appellate authority as regards the non
compliance by the Petitioner’s establishment of Condition Nos.3, 4 and
7 of the license.
10. We have considered the submissions and perused the record.
11. The validity of the suspension order dated 8 th July, 2026 has been
upheld by the order of the appellate authority. The issue arising for
consideration is whether the continued suspension is justified after the
deficiencies are rectified as noted in the re-verification report of 31 st
July, 2026.
12. During the inspection carried out on 7th July, 2026, the
Petitioner’s establishment was found to be non compliant on various
aspects as regards design, control of operations, maintenance and
sanitation, personal hygiene and training, and, record keeping. Section
32 of the Food Safety Act, empowers the designated officer to serve an
improvement notice upon failure to comply with the regulations and if
the food operator fails to comply with the improvement notice, the
license may be suspended.
13. The reply Affidavit pleads about the improvement notice dated
30th July, 2025 issued to the Petitioner. Section 32(1) of the Food Safety
Patil-SR (ch) 7 of 17
wp 3806-26 (1).doc
Act provides for improvement notice to be issued on failure to comply
with any regulations specifying the measures to be taken to secure
compliance. Upon non compliance, the food business operator’s license
may be suspended. Sub-Section (3) of Section 32 of the Food Safety Act
provides that 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 license granted to
him. The proviso to Sub-Section (3) of Section 32 of the Food Safety Act
empowers the designated officer to suspend the license forthwith in
the interest of public health for reasons to be recorded in writing.
14. In the present case, the suspension order dated 8 th July, 2026 was
passed in exercise of powers under the proviso to Section 32(3) of Food
Safety Act i.e. in interest of public health, listing the following as
detrimental to public health:
(a) Sale of alcohol and other beverages without license resulting in
violation of license Condition No 3.
(b) Common frying machine and common storage for vegetarian
and non vegetarian food items.
(c) Black cooking oil after usage being discharged in drainage.
15. Considering the basis of suspension order, if the auto generated
inspection report dated 7th July, 2026 is perused, it lists partial
compliance in so far as suitability of cooking oil is concerned, non
Patil-SR (ch) 8 of 17
wp 3806-26 (1).doc
compliance of proper segregation of raw, cooked vegetarian and non
vegetarian food and other non compliances. The re-inspection report
dated 31st July, 2026 shows compliance report of 97% with the
continued non compliances in respect of the following:
Sr. KOB Parameters Inspection Max Score
No. name Score obtain
ed.
7. General Food establishment has an updated FSSAI Partial- 2 1
catering license and is displayed at a prominent compliance
location
8. General Food material tested either through internal Partial- 2 1
catering laboratory or through an accredited lab, check Compliance
for records.
9. --- ----
10. General Potable water (meeting standards of IS:10500 Partial 4 2
Catering & tested semi-annually with records compliance
maintained thereof) is used as product
ingredient or I contact with food or food
contact surface.
16. The report of 31st July, 2026 indicates that there was compliance
of the parameters under the heading “Control and Operation”,
“Maintenance and Sanitation”, “Personal Hygiene” and “Training &
Record keeping”. Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner has handed over the revised food safety inspection check-list
and the marking and grading system. The grading has been divided into
4 Grades, which is as under :
Patil-SR (ch) 9 of 17
wp 3806-26 (1).doc
Grade Status Marks required.
A+ Compliance - Exemplar 90% & above.
A Compliance - Satisfactory 80% - 89%
B Needs improvement 50% - 79%
No Grade Non compliance Below 50%
17. As the Respondents themselves have awarded 97% marks to the
Petitioner’s establishment, the compliance, as per the Respondent’s
own grading is “exemplar”. The license has been suspended on 8 th July,
2026. The partial compliances as regards testing of food material and
use of potable water can be assessed only if the establishment is
permitted to continue its operation.
18. The impugned appellate order records the submission of the
Respondents as regards the re-verification being conducted on 31 st July,
2026 and that great majority of deficiencies were rectified. It was
submitted that the re-verification reflects a total score of 106 out of
110, yet records as “non-compliance.” It was submitted that there was
non compliance of Condition No.3 i.e. sale of chilled and alcoholic
beverages without corresponding food product category being
registered in the license and operation of establishment during period
of suspension.
19. The appellate authority considered the provisions of Section 3(1)
(zz)(xi) of the Food Safety Act and that the food samples which were
drawn after the inspection of 7th July 2026 were analysed by the food
Patil-SR (ch) 10 of 17
wp 3806-26 (1).doc
analyst, which showed that the used cooking oil is beyond the excess
ceiling fixed by the prescribed regulations. It further considered license
condition No.7 and Schedule 4 standard and that Schedule 4 standard
was not known to the establishment, non employment of technical
person, violation of license Condition No.3 and operation during period
of suspension.
20. The reason for continued suspension is based on finding of
violation of License Condition No.3 (intimation of change in activities)
and License Condition No.7 (sanitary and hygienic standards under
Schedule-4) of Conditions of License, Regulation 2.1.14 of the Foods
Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses)
Regulation, 2011, and unsafe finding of cooking oil in use.
21. It is surprising that having allotted 97% percentage certifying the
compliance as “exemplar”, the appellate authority has continued the
suspension. The appellate authority’s order does not disclose any
consideration of the re-verification report of 31 st July, 2026. The
determination of continued suspension should have factored in the
compliances which have been noted in the re-inspection report. The
suitability of cooking oil, which was found to be of partial compliance in
the report of 7th July, 2026, has been found to be compliant in the re-
inspection report of 31st July, 2026. The analysis of the used cooking oil
resulted in the same being found unsafe. The cooking oil was used
Patil-SR (ch) 11 of 17
wp 3806-26 (1).doc
when the establishment was in operation, however, what was required
to be ascertained is whether the non compliance of unsuitability of
cooking oil continues after the suspension is revoked, for which
opportunity is required to be given to the establishment. There cannot
be continued suspension of license on that ground and it is not a case,
where the Respondents have initiated proceedings for cancellation of
license.
22. The statutory scheme of Section 32 of the Food Safety Act enjoins
issuance of improvement notice for non compliance of any regulations
and, upon failure, to suspend the license. The continued non
compliance may be met with a show-cause notice and thereafter
cancellation of license. It is only in case of harm to public health that the
license may be suspended forthwith. The re-verification was conducted
at the directions of the Commissioner of Food Safety. The purpose is to
verify the compliances set out in the inspection report leading to
suspension. The non consideration of the re-verification report makes
the whole exercise of re-verification futile. The continued suspension, if
any, can be ordered only on consideration of the re-verification report
and on finding of continued non compliance.
23. In so far as violation of Condition Nos.3, 4 and 7 are concerned,
the same reads as under:
Patil-SR (ch) 12 of 17
wp 3806-26 (1).doc
“3. Inform authorities about any change or modifications in
activities.”
“4. Employ at least one technical person to supervise the
production process. The person supervising the production process
shall possess at least a degree in science with Chemistry/Bio-
Chemistry / Food and Nutrition / Microbiology or a degree or
diploma in food technology / dairy technology / Dairy Microbiology /
Dairy Chemistry / Dairy Engineering / Oil Technology / Veterinary
science / Hotel management and catering technology or any degree
or diploma in any other discipline related to the specific
requirement of the business from a recognised university or
institute or equivalent.”
“7. Maintain Factory’s sanitary and hygienic standards and
workers hygiene as specified in the Schedule-4 according to the
category of food business.”
24. The finding of the appellate authority as regards Condition No 7 is
concerned is as under:
“5.3. License Condition No 7 and the Schedule 4 Standards:
License Condition No.7 of the Conditions of License requires
the establishment to maintain its sanitary and hygienic
standards and workers hygiene as specified in Schedule 4,
according to the category of food business, an obligation that
is basic and continuing for an operating food service
establishment. This gap is corroborated by the proceeding
before this Authority on 04.08.2026 which record that
Schedule IV was found to be “not known” to the establishment.
An establishment whose own proprietor is unaware of
Schedule 4 standards applicable to its business cannot be said
to have demonstrated the sustained capacity for compliance
that continuance of its license presupposes, irrespective of the
marks scored on individual line items of the re-verification
checklist.”
25. The finding indicates that based on the proprietor’s viva voce, the
re-verification report of 31st July, 2026 has been disregarded, which is a
course unknown to law. It is the establishment which is required to be
Patil-SR (ch) 13 of 17
wp 3806-26 (1).doc
compliant with the Schedule-IV and was so found in the re-verification
on 31st July, 2026 and not the proprietor’s knowledge on the
enactment.
26. Insofar as Condition No.4 as regards the employment of technical
person is concerned, in the case of Wardha Tahsil Go-Dugdha Utpadak
Sahakari Sangh Ltd, Wardha v. State of Maharashtra (supra), before
the Nagpur Bench of this Court, the violation of licensing condition was
part of the contravention alleged in that case including identical
condition of employment of technical person. Noting the provisions of
Section 18 of the Food Safety Act, the Court held that the risk
management may relate to implementation of policies, control and
active monitoring to mitigate, identify the risk and to prepare
actionable mitigating balance and safety protocols to minimize control
and eliminate those threats etc. It held that in that case the only
reasonable ground to suspect that the food may present a risk to the
human life was buttermilk because of use of industrial ice in the same
and as far as other deficiencies were concerned, they do not fall in the
category of exceptional circumstances.
27. The Hon’ble Division Bench did not consider the other deficiencies
to constitute harm to public health for invocation of Section 32(3) of
Food Safety Act, which will also apply in the present case.
Patil-SR (ch) 14 of 17
wp 3806-26 (1).doc
28. Coming to violation of license condition No.3, the same requires
the establishment to inform the licensing authorities about any change
in its activities being the very condition that founded the original
suspension order in respect of chilled and alcoholic beverages. It is
difficult to accept that the sale of food product categories not covered
by the license, by itself, would constitute harm to public health. It is
pleaded that due to suspension, the online portal is locked and
Petitioner cannot apply for modification of license. It is for this reason
that the re-inspection report shows non compliance of updated FSSAI
license. In any event, Section 63 of Food Safety Act prescribes penalty
for carrying on business without license. It was open for the concerned
authority to pass an order of penalty for such violation, however, the
continued suspension is unwarranted.
29. The appellate order would indicate that one of the reasons for
continued suspension was the operation of Petitioner’s establishment
during the period of suspension. Sections 55 of the Food Safety Act
provide for penalty for failure to comply with the directions of the Food
Safety Officer and for carrying out business without license providing
for penalty of fine and not continued suspension. The reply Affidavit of
Respondents itself refers to Section 55 and 63 of Food Safety Act, and
instead of invoking the relevant provisions, have continued with the
suspension.
Patil-SR (ch) 15 of 17
wp 3806-26 (1).doc
30. The object of suspension of license as mandated by the proviso to
Sub-Section (3) of Section 32 of the Food Safety Act is to protect the
public health. The suspension of license for non compliances, which
have the propensity to harm public health, cannot be continued
infinitely. The consequence of compliance of the deficiencies should, in
our view, result in revocation of the suspension of license and continued
monitoring as mandated by law to ensure statutory compliances. The
establishment cannot be put under suspension even after obtaining
“exemplar” compliance. The suspension order has been continued by
appellate authority on grounds which are unsustainable in so far as
harm to public health is concerned.
31. In event there was continued operation of the establishment
during the period of suspension, it is open for the concerned authority
to adopt proceedings for imposition of penalty, as per Sections 55 and
63 of Food Safety Act. It is open for the Respondents to monitor the
compliances and take necessary steps in accordance with law, in the
event, future non compliances are noted. As the Petitioner was found
to be carrying out sale of food products which are not endorsed on the
license, the Petitioner through its proprietor is directed to file an
undertaking in this Court within a period of seven days that the food
products, which are not endorsed on the license will not be sold.
Patil-SR (ch) 16 of 17
wp 3806-26 (1).doc
32. In light of the discussion above, the impugned order of appellate
authority dated 19th August, 2026 is quashed and set aside. The
suspension order dated 8th July, 2026 is revoked and the license is
restored. The Petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
33. Interim application stands disposed of.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Patil-SR (ch) 17 of 17
Checking your session…