Bombay HC slams FDA over "untrue" clean chit to Mantralaya canteen after lawyers' surprise inspection uncovers hygiene lapses

The Bombay High Court on Friday came down heavily on the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over what it described as "biased” enforcement of food safety norms against private restaurants/ eateries and partiality towards canteens/ eateries in government establishments like Mantralaya (State secretariat) and Vidhan Bhavan (State legislature) [Poornima Restaurant & Ors v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.].

A bench of acting Chief Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice Gautam A Ankhad made the observations after it made an unusual move of sending four lawyers to inspect the canteen at Mantralaya and finding that the FDA's clean chit to the canteen was "untrue" since the lawyers' team found the hygiene standards at the canteen to be in shambles.

The Court underscored that the FDA has to be impartial and there should be no bias against private eateries and partiality towards State establishments.

“We are of the view that the department has to be impartial with all, whether it is private or State. No litigant before the court should feel that private commercial establishments are meted out with different standards,” the Court said.

It was hearing a plea concerning the suspension of food safety licences of three privately owned food establishments in Mumbai. 

On July 29, the bench had directed the FDA to inspect canteens in State and statutory establishments, including those at Mantralaya.

On July 31, the FDA informed the court that canteens at Mantralaya and Vidhan Bhavan were 98% compliant. The claim immediately drew sharp scepticism from the bench.

Upon seeing the reports of these inspections, it questioned whether there was uniformity in FDA's enforcement of the law.

“We want parity, we want everyone to be treated equally. Everyone is under the law, no one is above the law. VVIPs are surely not above the law,” the bench remarked.

It underscored the need for parity in enforcement, observing that authorities should not selectively target private establishments.

“You can’t target only private properties and say statutory properties are 98% compliant,” the court said seeking photographs and videographic evidence of the inspections.

Therefore, in an unusual move, the Court deputed a team of four lawyers to inspect the Mantralaya canteen alongside FDA officials and report back the same day. When the matter was taken up again post-lunch, the findings sharply contradicted the FDA’s report.

The lawyers informed the court that “cleaning operations on a war footing were underway during their visit”.

Moreover, the hygiene and refrigeration were in shambles. 

The bench noted that the videos and on-site observations from the lawyers did not match the official reports for Mantralaya canteens. 

It concluded that the reporting authority “took a chance with the court” by showing reports indicating a uniform 98% compliance, which was untrue.

The judges also highlighted inconsistencies in the FDA’s approach, pointing out that in the case of one Poornima restaurant, a banana with a black dot had been cited as a violation.

This was followed by a low compliance score of 37% and immediate suspension of a licence after a five-hour inspection. In contrast, the Mantralaya canteens were declared nearly perfect after a 30-minute inspection.

The bench also criticised FDA’s enforcement strategy.

“You are shooting first and asking later… the medication should not be worse than the disease,” the bench observed.

It questioned why improvement notices were not issued before suspensions, noting that such actions led to prolonged litigation and business disruption.

The Court directed FDA to keep the suspension notices in abeyance and issue improvement notices, giving the restaurants a chance to rectify deficiencies till August 4. It ordered the FDA to carry out fresh inspections on August 5. The same approach will apply to the Mantralaya canteens. 

The Court also directed the FDA Commissioner to scrutinise the inspection reports submitted to the court and to ensure impartial enforcement going forward.

The matter will be heard next on August 6.