Food Safety & Standard Act | Designated Authority May Not Issue License U/S 31 In Case Of Dispute Between Restaurant Co-Owners: J&K&L High Court

The observation was made by Justice Sanjeev Kumar while hearing a plea of businessman, who claimed to be the co-owner of a Restaurant at Srinagar, challenging the licence issued by Designated Officer/State Licensing Authority under the FS&S Act, 2006 in favour of his brother in respect of the Restaurant in question.

Taking note of the pending dispute between the brothers/ co-sharers with regard to the status of the property, the bench held that the designated authority under Food Safety and Standard (FS&S) Act, 2006 was well within its power not to grant or renew the license under the said Act in favour of one and to the exclusion of others.

Adjudicating further Justice Kumar observed that under Chapter-II of the Regulations framed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India in the exercise of powers conferred by Clause (o) of Sub Section (2) of Section 92 of the Act read with Section 31 of the Act, the Food Business, the Food Business Operator and the Premises are required to be licensed and, therefore, to say that the license under the Act is issued to the person and not to the premises is not the correct position emerging from the reading of the provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder with regard to licensing and registration of food business.

The court noted that, indisputably, petitioner and his brother, who are joint owners of the premises, do not see eye-to-eye with each other and both have lodged their respective claims before the authorities concerned including the designated authority under the FS&S Act for grant of license and registration etc.

Keeping in view the current state of affairs court held that licensing authority would not be in a position to grant license under the Act with respect to the premises, ownership and possession whereof is claimed by the petitioner as well as his brother nor it would be possible for the licensing authority to name any of them to be the Food Business Operator i.e. the person responsible to carry on the food business and comply with the terms and conditions of the license

The court accordingly directed the authorities that till the dispute is settled between the petitioner and respondent No.5 (brother of petitioner) amicably or through intervention of the Court of competent jurisdiction, neither the designated authority under the Act shall issue the license nor registration shall be accorded under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act by the authority concerned to either the petitioner or to his brother in respect of premises.

In the absence of license under the Act, the bench directed, it would not be competent either for the petitioner or for the brother to carry on the food business in the premises known as "Samci Restaurant".

Disposing of the plea, the bench held that so long as the premises to be licensed under the Act remains under dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.5, the designated authority under the Act is well within its power not to grant or renew the license under the Act in favour of one and to the exclusion of other. "The decision of the designated authority under the Act not to renew the license in favour of respondent No.5 is, thus, completely in consonance with law," the bench underscored.

The bench in the same breath clarified that the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 may, however, apply for grant of license jointly and in case they fulfill the requirements of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder, they shall be granted the requisite license by the designated authority.

Case Title : Parvez Ahmad Baba Vs UT of J&K

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 152

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment