Bombay HC Fines Maharashtra FDA ₹5 Lakh for "Torturing" Pune Sweet Shop Despite 98% Compliance
EduLaw EditorialLegal UpdatesThe Bombay High Court slammed the Maharashtra FDA for keeping a Pune sweet shop shut for 34 days despite a 98% compliance score on re-inspection, ordering ₹5 lakh compensation and calling the action "plain and simple perversity." Case Details: Case Name: Gurunanak Dairy Sweets v. Union of India & Ors. Court: Bombay High Court Bench: Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad Date of Judgment: August 17, 2026 Subject: Food Safety Regulation, Licence Suspension, Administrative Overreach, Proportionality in Regulatory Action When a regulatory body designed to protect public health becomes the instrument of a citizen's financial ruin — despite that citizen doing nearly everything right — the judiciary must step in. That is precisely what the Bombay High Court did when it imposed a ₹5 lakh fine on the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration for refusing to restore the licence of a Pune-based sweet shop that had achieved a near-perfect 98% hygiene compliance score on re-inspection. The Court did not mince words, calling the FDA's conduct "plain and simple perversity" and an act of "torturing citizens." The case of Gurunanak Dairy and Sweets, a retailer operating out of Wadgaon Sheri in Pune, exposes a fundamental tension in administrative governance — the line between legitimate enforcement and bureaucratic harassment. It serves as a landmark reminder that regulatory power must always be exercised with proportionality, fairness, and a clear connection to the public interest it claims to serve. The Chain of Events That Led to Court The trouble began on June 11, 2026, when the FDA received complaints of food poisoning linked to the sweet shop. The following day, June 12, the FDA suspended the food business licence of Gurunanak Dairy and Sweets and directed closure of business. According to the petitioner, this suspension was imposed without an improvement notice or a prior hearing — a point that would become significant in the judicial analysis of due process. The shop owners did not sit idle. They approached FDA Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe and submitted a detailed compliance report on July 9, addressing each of the observations made during the initial inspection. Four days later, on July 13, an FDA food safety officer conducted a re-inspection of the premises. The result was remarkable — Gurunanak Dairy and Sweets scored 35 out of 36 marks, translating to a 98% compliance rate in food safety and hygiene standards. By any reasonable measure, this score should have ended the matter. The shop had demonstrated overwhelmingly that it had rectified whatever deficiencies triggered the original complaint. Yet the FDA did not revoke the suspension. The licence remained cancelled. The shutters stayed down. On July 15, with no revocation in sight, the sweet shop filed an appeal before the FDA Commissioner. That appeal was heard and closed for orders on August 11 — nearly a month later — but no decision was communicated. With its daily earnings of approximately ₹25,000 evaporating with each passing day, Gurunanak Dairy and Sweets had no option but to approach the Bombay High Court. The FDA's Justification and the Court's Response Before the division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad, the FDA's counsel attempted to justify the continued suspension by pointing to the pending appeal. The argument was straightforward — since the appeal before the Commissioner had not yet been decided, the officers on the ground could not revoke the suspension order on their own. The FDA's counsel also cited a Government Resolution that purportedly barred revocation of licence suspension while an appeal remained pending. The Court was unimpressed. Acting Chief Justice Ghuge dismantled the argument with a pointed analogy: "Even a traffic police gives a challan, takes the payment, and lets the car go." The message was clear — once compliance is demonstrated, continued punishment serves no rational purpose. The bench observed that the FDA's intention of maintaining food safety was "laudable" and acknowledged that the department had "at least stood up" in performing its regulatory duty. However, the Court drew a firm line: laudable intent does not excuse disproportionate action. "You are going overboard," the Acting Chief Justice told the FDA. "You should have immediately revoked the suspension of the licence once you noticed 98% compliance." When the FDA persisted with the pending-appeal argument, the bench's response was sharp. "Absolute strange policies. Once you clear some outlet by giving them 98% compliance, they still have to file an appeal? This is absolute torture." The Court characterized the FDA's position as a "lame excuse" that could not withstand judicial scrutiny. The Question of Selective Enforcement Perhaps the most damaging observation from the bench concerned selective application of standards. Acting Chief Justice Ghuge pointedly asked whether the FDA had susp