Bombay High Court: While considering a challenge to an order suspending a food licence with immediate effect under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (2006 Act), the Division Bench of Ravindra V. Ghuge, ACJ., and Gautam A. Ankhad, J., held that the preventive purpose underlying suspension stood exhausted after the establishment substantially rectified deficiencies and achieved 95 per cent compliance during inspections directed by the Court. Consequently, the Court quashed the suspension of the 4-star hotel’s food licence and directed its restoration.
Also Read: Food Safety Enforcement in India: Misbranding & Courts
Background
The petitioner ran a business of operating a hotel establishment under the name ‘Park INN by Radisson’ and held a valid licence issued under the 2006 Act, valid up to 7 March 2031. On 2 July 2026, a surprise inspection was conducted by the Food Safety Officer, during which several deficiencies and instances of non-compliance with the Act, Rules and licence conditions were allegedly noticed. The competent authority invoked the proviso to Section 32(3), 2006 Act read with Regulation 2.1.8(iv), Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011 (2011 Regulations) and suspended the licence with immediate effect, directing cessation of all food business activities.
The petitioner challenged the suspension order contending that the power to suspend a licence forthwith is an extraordinary power intended to be exercised only where circumstances disclose an immediate threat to public health. It was argued that the authority was required to record reasons in writing demonstrating the necessity of immediate suspension and that the impugned order did not disclose any such reasons. The challenge was founded on the contention that Section 32 ordinarily contemplates issuance of an improvement notice and an opportunity to rectify deficiencies and that the impugned action was arbitrary, disproportionate and contrary to the legislative intent.
The State defended the order by submitting that the surprise inspection disclosed serious lapses in hygiene, sanitation, food storage and food handling practices. Reliance was placed upon inspection photographs and the inspection score showing that the establishment secured only 65 out of 108 marks, indicating approximately 61 per cent compliance. According to the authorities, the seriousness of the deficiencies justified immediate intervention in the interest of public health and consumer safety.
Also Read: FSSAI QR Code Enhances Food Safety in India
Analysis
The Court considered it appropriate to evaluate the current compliance status of the establishment before deciding the challenge. Accordingly, by order dated 17 July 2026, the Court directed constitution of a Special Committee to undertake a fresh inspection. The Court noted that the inspection conducted on 18 July 2026 revealed improvement in compliance to 79 per cent, although several deficiencies continued to persist. Thereafter, at the request of the petitioner, a second inspection was directed by order dated 22 July 2026. The subsequent report disclosed substantial rectification of deficiencies. The petitioner secured 81 out of 86 marks amounting to 95 per cent compliance and was awarded Grade “A”, with the overall assessment recorded as “Compliance/Satisfactory”. The only adverse observation recorded was the presence of two insects in the dish-washing and sweet section of the kitchen premises.
The Court observed that these subsequent developments materially altered the factual position that existed on the date of suspension. The Court highlighted that suspension under the proviso to Section 32(3), 2006 Act is preventive in nature, namely, to safeguard public health until identified deficiencies are rectified. Once an independent inspection conducted established that the establishment had substantially corrected the deficiencies and attained 95per cent compliance, continuation of the suspension ceased to serve the purpose for which it was originally imposed.
The Court further observed that the solitary finding concerning the presence of two insects, viewed in the context of an overall assessment as “Compliant/Satisfactory”, could not justify continued suspension of the licence. The Court accepted the petitioner’s undertakings that it would continue to maintain the highest standards of hygiene and sanitation and ensure strict compliance with the Act, Rules, applicable Regulations and licence conditions relating to storage, preparation and service of food.
The Court declined to adjudicate the larger issue raised by the petitioner regarding the scope and ambit of the power under the proviso to Section 32(3), 2006 Act, including whether an improvement notice is an indispensable pre-condition before directing immediate suspension. The Court kept all questions of law open for determination in an appropriate case and clarified that any future breach would entitle the regulatory authorities to take action in accordance with law.
Before parting with the matter, the Court asked the Government Pleader whether all eating establishments across Maharashtra, including those operated by statutory authorities, State instrumentalities, or semi-government establishments, had been inspected under this same drive. The Government Pleader undertook to apprise the Court of the details of inspections carried out across the State, including at government or semi-government establishments.
Also Read: Using unhygienic products not within Competition Act scope
Decision
Consequently, while allowing the writ petition, the Court quashed the suspension order dated 3 July 2026 and directed restoration of the food business licence, thereby permitting the establishment to carry on its business activities.
The matter was listed for further hearing on 31st July 2026.
[Sanjay Baburao Nirbhavne v. State of Maharashtra (Deptt. Of Food and Drug Administration), Writ Petition No. 8429 of 2026, decided on 29-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Mayur Khandeparkar with Shobhra Swami, Sagar Shetty and Meghna Vijan, i/by Mr. Sagar Shetty, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader with Pooja Patil, AGP.