The Bombay High Court came down heavily on the Maharashtra Food & Drug Administration on Saturday for passing “mechanical orders” that retained the suspension of licenses for five eateries operating in the Mumbai Cricket Association premises. The division bench, consisting of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad, was irked to find that despite a previous direction to reconsider the issue and pass a reasoned order, the Assistant Commissioner of FDA simply upheld the suspensions without applying any new logic to the case.
Orders ignored, license suspension upheld
The judges noted that the FDA had previously been ordered to re-inspect the premises of the five establishments—Permit Room, Oriental Swing, Clubway & Pastry Counter, Mediterranean, and Pavilion—and take a fresh decision. Instead of following this instruction, the Assistant Commissioner retained the suspension of the licenses. ACJ Ghuge questioned the officer’s decision-making process, asking why he had not applied his mind to the provisions or the privity of the contract as directed.
ACJ Ghuge remarked that the officer had not applied his mind. The court had asked for a pragmatic view, not a pedantic view. The judge said the order indicates that the officer seems to have some problem with the court’s orders. The judge asked why the officer cannot obey the court’s orders and why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against the Assistant Commissioner.
Warning of contempt proceedings
The bench pointed out a pattern of haste in the FDA’s decision-making, referencing previous observations that the authority should not use excessive force due to being in a rush. ACJ Ghuge observed that the officer does not read the court’s orders or the law before acting. The judge said the officer thinks he is a lord and can do anything. The court had told the officer earlier not to use excessive force.
Related: Keffe D to Face Trial in Tupac Murder Case
The judges emphasized that no authority can pass orders without prescribing reasons. ACJ Ghuge stated that if giving reasons applies to the High Court judges, then it certainly applies to the FDA Assistant Commissioner. The judge warned that contempt of court proceedings would be initiated against the Assistant Commissioner unless the FDA changed its stance.
This situation is an example of administrative friction where agencies struggle to change from rigid enforcement to pragmatic resolution. When a regulatory body treats a legal directive as a suggestion rather than a mandate, it invites judicial intervention that can quickly overshadow the original administrative concern. The court’s willingness to consider contempt proceedings signals that procedural compliance is as important as the substantive outcome in these matters, similar to cases where drivers are given time to learn a new language.
Additional Government Pleader Priyabhushan Kakade, representing the FDA, urged the bench not to initiate contempt proceedings and asked for time to consult the concerned officers. After the matter was reheard, Kakade informed the bench that the FDA had now decided to restore the suspended licences. The bench accepted this statement and disposed of the writ petition.
It is done.