Bombay High Court
GURUNANAK DAIRY AND SWEETS THR ITS PROPRIETORversusTHE UNION OF INDIA THR THE SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The suspension order is vacated, the pending appeal is deemed withdrawn, and the petitioner is awarded compensation, with the licence modification to be processed within 72 hours.
Summary
M/s. Gurunanak Dairy & Sweets, a retailer of sweets and dairy products, had its food licence suspended by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) after an inspection revealed sanitation and hygiene deficiencies. The petitioner appealed the suspension and subsequently submitted a comprehensive compliance report, achieving a 98% compliance score in a re‑inspection. Despite the compliance, the authorities refused to lift the suspension, citing the pendency of the appeal. Relying on a recent judgment in M/s. Pind Punjab, the Court held that a pending appeal does not justify continuation of a suspension when the deficiencies have been remedied. The Court vacated the suspension order, ordered the withdrawal of the appeal, directed payment of Rs 5 lakh as compensation for loss of business, and instructed the FSSAI to process the petitioner’s request to remove the ‘general manufacturing’ category from its licence within 72 hours.
Issues considered
- Whether a suspension order can remain in force despite the petitioner having remedied the deficiencies and achieved a high compliance score.
- Whether the pendency of an appeal bars the administrative authority from revoking a suspension.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for loss of business caused by the suspension.
- Whether the petitioner’s application to modify the FSSAI licence should be entertained promptly.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Food Safety
- Licence Suspension
- Administrative Appeal
- Compliance Score
- Compensation
- FSSAI
- Regulatory Law
Judgment
916-WP.9905.2026.odt
JVS.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9905 OF 2026
M/s. Gurunanak Dairy & Sweets } Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. } Respondents
Mr. Abhijeet Desai with Mr. Vijay Singh, Ms. Mohini R. and
Mr. Deepesh Ramakhiani, for the Petitioner.
Mrs. A. P. Thipsay, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2, 3,
4, 5 & 6-State.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ. &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
DATE : 17th AUGUST, 2026
P.C.:
1. The Petitioner is a dealer of sweets and dairy products. The
Petitioner commenced business in 2006. The food licence was renewed on
12th October, 2022, which is to last until 12 th October, 2027 under the Food
Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
2. On 11-12th June, 2026, the Food Safety Officer, Smt. A. D.
Jhanjhurne, FDA, Pune inspected the Petitioner’s premises pursuant to a
complaint of food poisoning and recorded negative observations regarding
sanitation, record-keeping, labelling and staff hygiene. On 12 th June, 2026,
Respondent No. 4 passed the impugned order of suspension and directed
closure of business.
1
916-WP.9905.2026.odt
3. On 15th June, 2026, the Petitioner preferred Appeal No. 25 of
2026 before Respondent No. 6, the Commissioner, Food and Drug
Administration. On 9th July, 2026, the Petitioner tendered a comprehensive
full compliance report addressing every observations/objections recorded in
the inspection. On 13th July, 2026, Respondent No. 5 re-inspected the
Petitioner’s premises and an auto generated inspection report ID No.1253428
recorded 35 out of 36 marks and indicated the compliance score of 98%. An
observation was recorded that the Petitioner needs to seek change its licence
since it is active only in retail business and does not carry out any
manufacturing process.
4. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner has relied upon an order
passed by this Court dated 16th July, 2026 in Writ Petition No. 8360 of 2026
(M/s. Pind Punjab vs. Union of India & Ors.) . He points out the observations
of this Court in Paragraph Nos. 3 to 7, which read as under: -
3. The Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the
Commissioner of Food and Drug Administration on 28th
June, 2026. The learned AGP informs us that the
concerned Commissioner passed an order directing a
fresh inspection. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner
submits that he has obtained a copy of the fresh
inspection report with reference to the inspection carried
out on 8th July, 2026, bearing Report ID
No.1251494, which is an auto generated inspection
report. The eight pages report is tendered across the Bar
which is marked as ‘X’ for identification. He points out
that in the inspection, the maximum score was 112
2
916-WP.9905.2026.odt
marks. The Petitioner obtained 112 marks, and the
percentage, as per the final result, is 100%.
4. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned AGP appearing
on behalf of Respondent Nos.3 to 5 submit, on
instructions, that the auto generated inspection report
marked ‘X’ cannot be disputed.
5. In fact, after the report was generated on 8 th July,
2026, the concerned officer, Mr. N.R. Sarkate, should
have issued a consequential order restoring the license.
He probably has not done so because the Appeal was
pending.
6. Proceedings initiated vide the Appeal, need not be
taken forward since the Petitioner has cured all the
deficiencies and he has been granted 100% compliance
report.
7. As such, this Petition is partly allowed, with the
following directions :
(a) The impugned suspension order dated 23rd
June, 2026 shall lose its efficacy and the license
shall stand restored forthwith;
(b) The pending Appeal before the
Commissioner, Food and Drug
Administration, has achieved its purpose and
the same stands disposed off;
(c) The concerned Commissioner would issue a
formal order disposing off the said Appeal
from its file.
5. Mrs. A. P. Thipsay, the learned ‘B’ Panel Counsel appearing on
behalf of Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 submits, on instructions from the
concerned officers present in the Court Hall, that the suspension order has
not been revoked because the Petitioner has preferred an Appeal. The Appeal
3
916-WP.9905.2026.odt
has been heard and closed for judgment on 11 th August, 2026. Because the
Appeal was filed, though the Petitioner is 98% compliant to the extent of
retail business and does not indulge in the manufacturing activities, the
suspension was not revoked. Even the Application of the Petitioner dated 16 th
July, 2026 seeking removal of ‘general manufacturing’ category from the
food licence, for which the requisite fees of Rs. 1,000/- was paid, is also not
dealt with because the Appeal is pending.
6. We find the submissions of the Respondents to be unconvincing.
On 12th June, 2026, the Petitioner’s food licence was suspended because of
deficiencies. Thereafter, the Petitioner removed all the deficiencies and
tendered a comprehensive compliance report dated 9 th July, 2026. The
authorities themselves visited the premises and carried out an inspection on
13th July, 2026. If pendency of the Appeal was not an impediment for the
Respondent authorities in inspecting the premises of the Petitioner, we find
no reason for the authorities to continue with the suspension of the retail
food licence only because an Appeal was pending. If the said logic is to be
applied, the authorities should not have even inspected the premises of the
Petitioner on the plea that the Appeal was pending. If re-inspection was
permissible notwithstanding the pendency of the Appeal, the Petitioner
scoring 98% compliance marks, should have fetched an order of instant
4
916-WP.9905.2026.odt
recalling of the suspension order.
A lame excuse that an Appeal is pending should not have been
put-forth. If the Petitioner had not preferred an Appeal, would the
Respondent authorities still have sat over the suspension order
notwithstanding the fact that the re-inspection has revealed 98% compliance?
The compliance and removal of deficiencies was a lawful ground for
immediate revocation of the suspension.
7. The Petitioner’s reliance on the order of this court in M/s. Pind
Punjab (supra), is well placed. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner points
out that the Petitioner, which is a small business, earns around Rs. 25,000/-
per day and lost its business for almost 35 days. The total loss of revenue is
around 9,00,000/-.
8. In view of the above, considering the entire report, which deals
with several aspects including cleanliness, hygiene, maintenance and
sanitation, wherein the Petitioner has secured 98% compliance score, we
deem it appropriate to direct the Food and Drug Administration of the State
of Maharashtra to compensate the Petitioner’s loss of Rs.9 lakhs, with a
compensatory payment of Rs. 5 lakh only.
5
916-WP.9905.2026.odt
9. This Petition is allowed. The impugned suspension order stands
vacated forthwith. The Petitioner is at liberty to restart its retail business in
dairy and sweets. The Food and Drug Administration shall deposit the
amount of Rs. 5 lakh in this Court within 30 days from today. The Petitioner
is at liberty to withdraw the said amount without any condition.
10. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the
Petitioner desires to withdraw the pending Appeal. In view of the above, the
said Appeal is disposed off as withdrawn, on request. A formal order shall be
passed by Respondent No. 6 declaring that the Appeal is disposed off, having
been withdrawn by the Petitioner.
11. The Petitioner’s Application for modification of the FSSAI
licence for removal of the ‘general manufacturing’ category, shall be dealt
with within 72 hours and if the application is allowed, the modified FSSAI
licence shall be issued to the Petitioner.
JAYANT
VISHWANATH
SALUNKE
Digitally signed by
JAYANT VISHWANATH
SALUNKE
Date: 2026.08.18
16:55:47 +0530
[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]
6
Checking your session…