The Bombay High Court has penalised the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for failing to restore a Pune sweet shop's license despite 98% compliance, ordering a ₹5 lakh compensation payment.
- Bombay HC ordered Maharashtra FDA to pay ₹5 lakh compensation to Gurunanak Dairy and Sweets.
- The shop achieved 98% compliance in re-inspection but the license remained suspended.
- The business suffered a revenue loss of ₹8.74 lakh during the 34-day closure.
The Bombay High Court has delivered a stinging rebuke to the Maharashtra food safety body, ordering it to pay ₹5 lakh in compensation to a Pune-based confectionery. The court found that the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) acted with "perversity" by keeping the license of Gurunanak Dairy and Sweets suspended even after a re-inspection report showed a staggering 98 percent compliance with safety norms.
A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice Gautam A Ankhad expressed disbelief at the department's rigid and illogical stance. The court noted that while the intention to maintain food safety is laudable, the department went "overboard" by refusing to revoke the suspension immediately upon seeing the high compliance score.
Why This Matters
BozokMedia analysis shows that this judgment serves as a critical check on administrative overreach. In an era where 'Ease of Doing Business' is a national priority, such bureaucratic inertia can stifle small enterprises. By imposing a financial penalty on a state body, the court is signaling that administrative negligence resulting in financial loss to citizens will not be tolerated.
"This ruling reinforces the principle that regulatory power must be exercised reasonably and not as a tool for harassment."
The conflict began after food poisoning complaints led to an initial inspection where the FDA found sanitation and hygiene violations. The shop owners promptly addressed these issues and submitted a compliance report on July 9. A subsequent inspection on July 13 awarded the shop 35 out of 36 marks (98%), yet the FDA insisted the owner file a formal appeal rather than simply restoring the license.
| Metric | Initial Inspection | Re-inspection Result |
|---|---|---|
| Compliance Rate | Multiple Violations | 98% (35/36 Marks) |
| License Status | Suspended | Remained Suspended (until HC intervention) |
| Business Impact | Operational Halt | ₹8.74 Lakh Revenue Loss |
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: Why did the court term the FDA's policy as 'perversity'?
The court used this term because the FDA required the shop to file a legal appeal despite the shop already meeting 98% of the required safety standards.
Q2: How much revenue did the shop lose?
The petitioner reported a revenue loss of ₹8.74 lakh over the 34 days the business remained closed.
