The Bombay High Court has revoked the suspension of the food licence of Gurunanak Dairy and Sweets in Pune after the shop remained shut for 34 days despite scoring 35 out of 36 marks, or 98%, in a fresh food-safety inspection.
The court also directed the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to pay ₹5 lakh in compensation to the business.
The action against the shop began on June 12 following a food-poisoning complaint and concerns over sanitation and hygiene.
Although the shop later submitted a compliance report and cleared almost all inspection parameters, the FDA did not restore its licence, citing a pending appeal.
The court called the explanation a “lame excuse” and questioned whether the regulator had gone too far in enforcing food-safety rules.
From Food Safety Action To 34-Day Closure
Gurunanak Dairy and Sweets, located in Pune’s Wadgaon Sheri, had its food licence suspended by the FDA on June 12 after authorities received a complaint related to food poisoning and identified concerns linked to sanitation, maintenance and hygiene.
The shop challenged the suspension three days later and submitted a compliance report on July 9 outlining corrective measures.
An FDA officer reinspected the premises on July 13, awarding it 35 out of 36 marks, equivalent to 98% compliance with the assessed food-safety requirements.
Despite the strong re-inspection result, the licence remained suspended. The FDA argued before the High Court that an appeal against the original suspension was pending before the appellate authority.
The appeal had been heard and reserved for judgment on August 11, but the court questioned why the fresh inspection could not have led to the licence being restored.
“Your intention is laudable, but you are going overboard,” the Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice Gautam A Ankhad observed.
The judges also described the approach as “plain and simple perversity” and questioned: “Once you clear with 98%, you say, now, go and file an appeal. What is this? Torturing citizens?”
Shop Claims ₹8.5 Lakh Revenue Loss
The prolonged suspension had a direct financial impact on the business. According to the shop’s lawyer, the 34-day closure resulted in a revenue loss of around ₹8.5 lakh.
The High Court ultimately set aside the suspension, allowing Gurunanak Dairy and Sweets to resume operations, and directed the Maharashtra FDA to deposit ₹5 lakh as compensation within 30 days.
The ruling does not question the need for strict food-safety enforcement. Instead, the court’s criticism centres on what happened after the shop underwent a fresh inspection and achieved a 98% compliance score.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Food safety regulations are designed with a clear and essential purpose: to protect public health by ensuring that the food people consume is safe, hygienic, and free from contamination.
Strong enforcement of these rules is necessary, especially in situations where genuine risks are identified, as even small lapses in food handling can have serious consequences for consumers.
However, effective regulation is not only about strict enforcement, it is also about fairness, accountability, and proportionality in decision-making.
Regulatory accountability must apply not just to businesses but equally to the authorities enforcing the rules.
When an inspection or re-inspection shows that a business has achieved substantial or near-complete compliance, continued punitive action without reassessment can become disproportionate.
In such cases, administrative measures like licence suspensions or closures should be reviewed promptly and lifted without unnecessary delay, especially when corrective steps have already been taken.
Transparency in how decisions are made and how compliance is evaluated is equally important to maintain trust in the system.
A regulatory framework intended to safeguard public interest should not unintentionally impose excessive hardship on small and medium businesses that have already addressed the concerns raised by authorities.
Overly rigid or delayed responses can disrupt livelihoods, affect employees, and create economic losses that go beyond the intent of the original enforcement action.
This is why timely review mechanisms and clear communication between regulators and businesses are critical components of a balanced system.
The Bombay High Court’s intervention in such cases serves as an important reminder that public authorities must strike a careful balance between enforcement and fairness.
It reinforces the principle that due process is not a procedural formality but a core requirement of just governance.
Empathy, proportionality, and responsiveness should guide regulatory action, especially when compliance has been demonstrated.
Ultimately, the challenge lies in maintaining uncompromising food safety standards while ensuring that enforcement systems are efficient, fair, and adaptive.
Regulators can achieve this by strengthening inspection transparency, introducing faster appeal and review processes, and ensuring that penalties or restrictions are always aligned with the current level of risk.
Also Read: iPhone 15 Overheated, Lost Network: Haryana Consumer Court Orders Apple To Pay ₹45,500
