“You Think You Are A Lord?” Bombay High Court Slams FDA Officer Over Suspension of Five Mumbai Eateries
The Bombay High Court on Saturday came down heavily on Maharashtra’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) after the regulator refused to lift the suspension of food licences of five eateries operating at the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) premises in Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC). The court warned that contempt proceedings could be initiated against the officer responsible.
The five establishments are Permit Room, Oriental Swing, Clubway & Pastry Counter, Mediterranean and Pavilion. They operate from the Sharad Pawar Indoor Cricket Academy and Recreational Centre at the MCA premises in BKC.
The dispute arose after the FDA suspended their food licences on August 20, citing violations under food-safety law. The MCA challenged the action before the High Court, which on August 25 directed the FDA to conduct a fresh inspection and reconsider the suspension.
The High Court had specifically asked the FDA to take a “pragmatic” approach, examine the contractual relationship between the MCA and its food-service provider, Shirke Infrastructure, and then pass a reasoned decision.
A fresh inspection was subsequently conducted. Reports indicated that the eateries had achieved about 88% compliance with the applicable food-safety requirements. Despite this, an FDA Assistant Commissioner passed an order retaining the suspension of their licences.
That decision infuriated the division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam A Ankhad.
The judges said the FDA had effectively ignored the earlier judicial direction to reconsider the matter. They described the fresh order as “mechanical” and accused the officer of failing to apply his mind to the issues placed before him.
The court questioned why the officer had adopted what it called a “pedantic” rather than “pragmatic” approach.
The criticism became particularly sharp when the bench questioned why the FDA continued to act in haste despite repeated judicial intervention.
“Why this haste? You do not read our orders, you do not read the law,” the court remarked, according to the report.
The bench went further, asking the FDA officer: “You think you are a lord and can do anything?” The court also repeated its earlier metaphor that the regulator should not “kill a mosquito with a sword” when dealing with regulatory violations.
The remarks reflected a broader concern: regulatory authorities have statutory powers, but those powers must be exercised reasonably, proportionately and in accordance with the law.
The judges also stressed that administrative authorities cannot simply pass orders without explaining the reasoning behind them. If judges themselves are required to provide reasons for judicial decisions, the court observed, the same principle necessarily applies to an FDA Assistant Commissioner exercising statutory authority.
The court therefore warned that contempt proceedings could be initiated against the concerned FDA Assistant Commissioner for allegedly disregarding the earlier order.
The FDA’s counsel, Additional Government Pleader P. P. Kakade, requested the court not to initiate contempt proceedings and sought time to consult the concerned officials.
When the matter was taken up again, the government informed the bench that the FDA had decided to withdraw the suspension of the five food licences.
The High Court accepted the statement. With the FDA agreeing to withdraw its suspension order, the five eateries were cleared to reopen. The petitions were subsequently disposed of.
The episode is significant because it comes amid growing judicial scrutiny of the Maharashtra FDA’s recent enforcement drive against restaurants and other food establishments.
Earlier this month, the Bombay High Court had questioned whether the FDA was applying food-safety rules uniformly. The court had particularly examined why some private eateries were being shut immediately while government-run canteens were being given opportunities to improve.
On July 31, the court had also criticised FDA inspection reports concerning canteens at Mantralaya and Vidhan Bhavan and stressed that no VVIP establishment could be above food-safety law.
The latest MCA dispute therefore forms part of a wider judicial examination of how the FDA is exercising its enforcement powers.
The central issue is not whether food-safety rules should be enforced. The court’s intervention instead focuses on how those powers are exercised—whether businesses are treated consistently, whether authorities properly consider their own inspection findings, whether orders contain reasons, and whether regulatory action is proportionate to the alleged violations.
For the five MCA eateries, the immediate result is clear: the licence suspension has been withdrawn and they can resume operations.
For the FDA, however, Saturday’s proceedings carry a much broader warning. The High Court has signalled that statutory authority does not mean unchecked authority—and that ignoring a court’s directions can expose individual officials to contempt proceedings and potentially far more serious consequences.
