"License Suspended Straightaway Without Issuing Improvement Notice": Madras High Court Stays Suspension Of KFC Operator's License In Thoothukudi

Justice GR Swaminathan agreed with the petitioners and observed that the order was liable to be dealt with on several grounds. The court noted that as per the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, the authorities were to first issue an improvement notice and in case of non-compliance, could suspend the license. In the present case, the court noted that the authorities had straightaway suspended the license in the first instance.

“As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the order is liable to be faulted on several grounds. Section 32(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 provides for issuance of improvement notices; if the food business operator fails to comply with the improvement notice, his licence can be suspended. In this case, the license has been suspended straightaway in the first instance,” the court observed.

By an order dated July 4, 2024, the authorities had suspended the license of a KFC shop located in Thoothukudi. The primary ground on which the license was suspended was that KFC had used Magnesium Silicate Synthetic. The authorities argued that as per the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulation 2011, edible oil could not be reused and since there was a violation of the rules, the license was rightly suspended.

The petitioner, on the other hand, pointed out that Magnesium Silicate Synthetic was not a prohibited agent and was a permitted filtration agent.

The court found prima facie merit in the petitioner's argument. The court noted that as per the 2011 regulations, Regulation 3(e) states that the Re-use of cooking oil was to be avoided and Regulation 3(j) says that oil could be reheated only to a maximum of three times to avoid formation of trans fat and it was ideal to use it only once if possible.

The court noted that while Regulation 3(e) was like an advisory, Regulation 3(j) was mandatory. Thus, the court noted that the authorities could not claim that the reuse of edible oil was prohibited.

The court also noted that though the Madras High Court had previously refrained the designated officers from giving public interviews at the time of or completion of inspection, in the present case the designated officer had breached the direction. The court added that the reason why such a direction was issued was to ensure that the reputation and goodwill of the Food Business Operator is not wrongly damaged.

Though the court was initially inclined to issue a contempt notice to the designated officer, on being informed that the lapse was not intentional, the court refrained from initiating contempt proceedings.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Sathish Parasaran, Senior Counsel for Mr. Vijayan Subramaniam

Counsel for Respondent: Mr K Balasubramanian, Special Government Pleader

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 286

Case Title: Sapphire Foods India Ltd v The Commissioner

Case No: WP(MD) No.16192 of 2024