The Bombay High Court has ordered the Maharashtra FDA to pay ₹5 lakh in compensation to a Pune sweet shop that was kept closed despite achieving a near-perfect food safety score.
- Bombay High Court revoked the suspension of Gurunanak Dairy and Sweets' license.
- The shop was kept closed for 34 days despite a 98% compliance score (35/36 marks).
- The Court ordered the Maharashtra FDA to pay ₹5 lakh in damages to the business owner.
In a scathing judgment against bureaucratic apathy, the Bombay High Court has set aside the suspension of a Pune-based sweet shop's food license. The court not only allowed the business to resume operations immediately but also directed the Maharashtra Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation for the undue hardship caused.
The Bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice Gautam A Ankhad, expressed severe disappointment over the FDA's conduct. The court noted that keeping a business shut after it had demonstrated 98% compliance with safety norms was nothing short of "torturing citizens."
Chronology of Events: From Complaint to Compensation
The conflict began on June 12, when the FDA suspended the license of Gurunanak Dairy and Sweets following reports of food poisoning and sanitation concerns. The shop owners promptly challenged the suspension on June 15 and submitted a comprehensive compliance report by July 9, addressing all flagged issues.
A subsequent re-inspection yielded a striking result: the shop scored 35 out of 36 marks. Despite this near-perfect score, the FDA refused to restore the license, arguing that an internal appeal process was still pending.
"Asking a business to navigate a lengthy appeal process after they have already proven 98% compliance is a perversion of administrative logic."
Why This Matters
BozokMedia analysis shows that this ruling serves as a critical check on the arbitrary exercise of power by regulatory bodies. While food safety is paramount, the legal system must ensure that regulatory actions do not morph into harassment. This case highlights a systemic flaw where procedural formalities (like pending appeals) are prioritized over factual evidence (like inspection scores), causing severe economic distress to small enterprises.
Advocate Abhijeet Desai, representing the petitioner, informed the court that the 34-day forced closure resulted in a direct revenue loss of ₹8.5 lakh. While the court acknowledged the FDA's duty to protect public health, it ruled that the department's refusal to reopen the shop post-compliance was unjustified.
| Metric | FDA Action/Stance | Court's Finding |
|---|---|---|
| Compliance Score | Inspection Conducted | 98% (35/36) - High Standard |
| Licensing Logic | Pending Internal Appeal | "Lame Excuse" / Perversity |
| Outcome | Prolonged Closure | ₹5 Lakh Compensation Ordered |
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: Why did the court order the FDA to pay compensation?
The court found it irrational to keep a shop closed when it had already achieved a 98% compliance score, viewing the delay as administrative harassment.
Q2: What was the financial loss claimed by the shop owner?
The owner claimed a direct revenue loss of ₹8.5 lakh due to the 34-day closure.
