The Bombay High Court on August 29 allowed five eateries at the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) premises in Bandra-Kurla Complex (BKC), Mumbai, to reopen after a fresh inspection found them substantially compliant with food-safety rules.
The Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had suspended their licences on August 21 over alleged hygiene, food-handling, storage and refrigeration lapses. However, despite the fresh inspection showing 88% compliance with detailed assessments reportedly ranging from 88% to 97% the FDA initially continued the suspension, citing a contractual issue involving M/s Shirke Infrastructure, which operates the outlets while the licences are in MCA’s name.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad sharply criticised the regulator for taking a “pedantic instead of pragmatic” approach and warned of contempt proceedings against concerned officials.
The FDA subsequently agreed to withdraw the suspension and issue a fresh notice to MCA, allowing the association an opportunity to explain its contractual arrangement before a reasoned decision is taken.
The case comes amid Maharashtra FDA Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe’s wider crackdown on food-safety violations across the state, which has drawn both public support and criticism over allegations of heavy-handed enforcement.
Court Questions FDA’s Approach
The High Court’s intervention came after the FDA initially refused to lift the suspension even though a fresh inspection showed significant improvement in the five eateries. The outlets Permit Room, Pavilion, Mediterranean, Oriental Swing, and Clubway & Pastry Counter are located within the MCA’s Sharad Pawar Indoor Cricket Academy and Recreational Centre in BKC.
The original inspection on August 20 had identified several alleged deficiencies, including issues with food handling, storage, refrigeration, sanitation and temperature control. The FDA suspended their food licences and registrations the following day.
The controversy then shifted from food hygiene to the licensing arrangement. While the food licences were registered in MCA’s name, the restaurants and catering operations were being run by M/s Shirke Infrastructure under a contractual arrangement.
The FDA relied on this distinction while continuing the suspension. MCA challenged the action before the High Court, which on August 25 directed the FDA to conduct another inspection and reconsider the licensing issue after applying its mind to the contractual relationship.
The fresh inspection changed the picture. The eateries were found to be substantially compliant, with reports placing overall compliance at 88%, while detailed assessments cited in court reportedly ranged between 88% and 97%. Senior counsel Vineet Naik, representing Shirke Infrastructure, described the compliance findings as “exemplary”.
Despite this, the FDA initially maintained its position. That prompted the bench to question why the department had not followed the court’s earlier direction to take a practical approach. “However, despite clearly saying this, the FDA has disobeyed our order and taken a pedantic view instead of a pragmatic view,” the court said. It warned that contempt action could follow against the concerned officials, asking them to explain themselves or face proceedings.
From Hygiene Lapses To Legal Dispute
The original FDA action was part of Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe’s highly visible campaign against food-safety violations in Maharashtra. During the August 20 inspection, officials reportedly flagged problems including unclean or slippery floors, refrigeration issues, inadequate temperature controls and improper food storage. Reports also referred to the presence of insects, including cockroaches and flies, which triggered concerns over the safety of food being served to players, officials and visitors at the MCA facility.
The controversy even led to the court questioning whether people consuming food at the facility knew what they were being served, with the proceedings generating the widely reported “non-veg tea” remark in reference to alleged contamination concerns.
The High Court did not, however, dismiss the importance of food-safety enforcement. At an earlier hearing, the bench had acknowledged Mundhe’s drive against hygiene violations while asking the FDA to remain consistent and avoid acting in an arbitrary or ad hoc manner. The court also allowed tea and coffee to be served temporarily through vending machines while tournaments were underway at the MCA premises.
The broader FDA campaign has been extensive. Reuters reported that Mundhe had led more than 3,000 food-safety raids since taking charge in May, covering street vendors, restaurants, major chains and other establishments. The campaign has gained significant attention online, with images and videos of unhygienic kitchens and alleged violations widely circulated.
Mundhe has defended the enforcement drive, saying establishments that do not follow the law cannot be allowed to continue doing business. In an interview with The Week, he said the FDA’s action was aimed at enforcing food-safety regulations across categories of establishments rather than targeting particular businesses.
The MCA case therefore highlights a more complex question: while regulators have a duty to intervene when public health is at risk, what should happen when establishments subsequently correct the deficiencies? In this case, the High Court separated the immediate food-safety question from the contractual issue.
Since the latest inspection showed substantial compliance, the court allowed the eateries to reopen while directing the FDA to address the MCA-Shirke Infrastructure arrangement through a fresh notice and reasoned order.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Food safety should never be compromised, and the FDA deserves credit for acting on reported hygiene concerns rather than allowing lapses to go unchecked. At the same time, regulation works best when enforcement is firm, transparent and proportionate.
The Bombay High Court’s criticism is a reminder that public authorities must be willing to reassess decisions when circumstances change and when businesses demonstrate that deficiencies have been addressed. The reopening of the five MCA eateries does not mean food-safety rules should be relaxed; rather, it reinforces the need for regulators to combine accountability with fairness and due process.
