Toufio Shareef v. 1. The State of Telangana

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. the High court may be pleased to receive, process, consider the application and grant fresh license to petitioner in terms of FSSI Act 2006 for commencement of food business pending the disposal of present writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI IMMANENI RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No'1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos'2 to 4 : SRI K'RAVI MOHAN' SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following COMMON ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PEIITION Naq .33734 of 2O24 and 7LL of2o25 coMMON ORDER: Heard Sri H. Sudhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.33734 of 2024, Sri Rama Rao Immaneni, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.711 of 2025, Sri K. Ravi Mohan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for GHMC in bottr the writ petitions. Perused the record.

2. Petitioner, respondents and the lis involved in both the writ petitions a.re common. Therefore, both the writ petitions are disposed of by way of this common order'

3. Petitioner herein is Proprietor of M/s.Grill House, Food Business Operator (for short, the FBO') situated at premises bearing No. 13-29, Opposite Devi Hospital, Lothkunta, A1wal. He has obtained FSSAI license bearing No.13622014OO1148 on ll.ll-2o22- It is valid upto lo.ll.2024. Petitioner is selling processed food known as KL,J l\ 1'\os lJ; ]I oi-l0llznrl , i I nl2O2r ) Shawarma made from chicken, Mayonnaise and combination of various sauces and vegetables in the said premises. Respondent No.2 in W.P.No.33734 of 2024 - the Assistant Food Controller (for short, 'AFCJ, GHMC, Hyderabad has issued a notice dated 16.01.2024 to the petitioner herein stating that Respondent No.3 in W.P.No.33734 of 2024 - the Food Safety Ofhcer (for short, 'FSOJ, Ctrcle-27, GHMC, Hyderabad has informed him that on the complaint of food poison occurred on consumption of Shawarma from M/s.Grill House, some persons were admitted in Harsha Hospital, Pet Basheerabad and in Cantonment General Hospital, Bollaram. They were suffered from food poison after consumption of Shawarma from the said establishment.

4. The FSO, Circle No.27, GHMC has visited both the hospitals, enquired with the victims and came to know that 15 persons were consumed Shawarma. They were hospitalized due to vomiting and motions. On inspection of the said establishment, it was closed. Therefore, it was KL,J w P Nos3:1731ot 2O21dnd 7l I ol2lr,?f J treated that there is violation of provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Rules and Regulations, 2OLl. There is also violation of the provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955 and HMC Byelaws for Regulation of Eating Houses (or) Hotels, 1973' Therefore' considering the said aspects, in the interest of public health, the aforesaid FSSAI License of the petitioner establishment was suspended. The AFC, GHMC, Hyderabad directed tJle petitioner not to continue the business activities till further orders from the concerned authorities in the interest of public health' The AFC' GHMC, Hyderabad also directed the petitioner to submit explanation within 3 days. He has submitted a reply dated 29.01.2024 stating that he has been running the said business for over 10 years' maintaining a strong reputation lor hygiene and food quallty' He has been adhearing to sanitation protocols and expressed concern that his competitors might have orchestrated the incident to tarnish his business reputation. On the complaint 4 KL,J .l lodged by the FSO, Circle No.27, GHMC, Police, Alwal Police Station has registered a case in Crime No-37 of

2024. Investigation is pending.

5. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner has received another notice, dated 15. 1O.2O24 from the FSO, Circle No.27, GHMC stating that a sample of 'PM Snack Sause (Made from Tomato Paste)' allegedly have been taken from the establishment of the petitioner. It is a-lso alleged tJlat petitioner did not comply with the suspension order despite suspending the license of the petitioner and directing him not to continue the business he is operating the business. Vide intimation of analysis report to FBO, dated 16.11.2024 the FSO, Circle No.27, GHMC referred the report dated 23.10.2024 issued by the Food Analyst. Therefore, according to the petitioner, respondent authorities suspended his license vide proceedings dated 15. lO.2O24 without considering the explanation dated 29.O1.2024 to the notice dated

16.01.2024. Therefore, he has filed W.P.No.33734 of KL,.I W.P.Nos 337:]r of 2O2l ed ?l I of 2025 ) 2024 to decla,re the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein in issuing notice dated 16.0l .2024 without considering the explanation dated 29.OI.2O24 and also consequential suspending of the business license of the petrtloner on r5.ro.2024, AS illegal. He has also filed another q,rit petition vide W.P.No.7 Il of 2025 to declare the action ol respondents, more particularly, respondent No.3 therein (The AFC, GHMC, Hyderabad) in issuing impugned proceedings dated 15. IO.2024 and continuing the same evt:n after expiry of license, as illegal.

6. Respondents filed counter contending that both the writ petitions filed by the petitioner are not maintainable in view ol the availability of alternative remedy. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the suspension order, he has to prefer an appeal in terms of Section 32(+)(c) of tl e Food Safety and Standards Act, 20O6. He has not pleaded any exceptions to maintain the present writ petitions despite availabilitv of alternative remedy. KL,J 6

7. Petitioner's FSSAI license was suspended

16.11.2024 on the ground that petitioner IS selling adulterated Shawarma and vide proceedings dated

15.10.2024 it was informed to the petitioner that despite suspension of his license, he continued with the business. Therefore, the FSO, Circle No.27, GHMC directed the petitioner to discontinue the food business operations till his license is revoked.

8. It is further contended tllat during inspection the petitioner establishment was initially found closed and upon the request of the FSO, Circle No.27, GHMC, they opened the establishment for inspection. During inspection it was found that leftovers of the prepared food like Shawarma and Bnryani was already disposed and they have lifted the sample of PM Snak Sause and other packed food articles which were found to be available.

9. It is further contended that the FSO, Circle No.27, GHMC received a complaint on 13.O1.2024 from orre / KL,J w.P.Nos33734 ot202 r and 7l I of 2025 1 Mr.Praveen Redcly stating that he suffered from food poisoning after consumption of Shawarma at petitioner's establishment. He has also received information from the media personnel that several people have suffered from food poisoning after consumption of Shawarma from the petitioner's establishment. Therefore, he has visited both the aforesaicl hospitals. The petitioner's establishment was closed and therefore, he could not lift the samples from the establishment. He has enquired with the victims of food poisoning. A11 of them informed him that they consumed Shawarma from the petitioner establishment on 13.01.2024. Doctors also informed him that patients have shown sJ,'rnptoms' of food poisoning' Therefore' he has lodged a complaint to Police, Alwal Police Station' who in turn registered a case in Crime No'37 of 2024' 10. Based on the inspection, the FSO, Circle No'27' GHMC has submitted recommendation dated 15'O1'2024 and basing on which the AFC, GHMC, Hyderabad suspended the license of the petitioner vide proceedings KL,.I w.P.Nos:].1731 oi 20.1.1 aid 7ll ar 2o?a 8 dated 16.01.2024. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the saJne, he has to prefer an appeal. His license was suspended vide proceedings dated 16.01.2024 but not on

15.1O.2024. Despite directing the petitioner not to continue the business in view of suspension of his license, he has continued the business. Samples were collected. Report was obtained, wherein it is stated that the sample collected from the petitioner's establishment is sub-standard. The said fact was also informed to the petitioner vide intimation dated 16.11.2024. With the said submissions respondents sought to dismiss both the writ petitions.

11. As discussed supra, petitioner has obtained FSSAI license under the provisions of the Food Safety and Standa,rds Act, 2OO6 on 11.ll.2o22 and it was valid upto to.tt.2024. L2. Perusa,l of the record would reveal that the FSO, Circle No.27, GHMC has received a complaint from KL,J \t P Nos.1:173a or 2O2r a.d 7l I of2025 9 Mr.Praveen Reddy informing him that he suffered from food poisoning on consuming Shawarma from the petitioner establishment. On the next day he has also received complaints stating that several people who consumed Shar.r''arma from the petitioner establishment suffered from food poisoning and admitted in Harsha Hospital, Pet Basheerabad and Cantonment General Hospital, Bollaram. He has visited both the aforesaid hospitals ancl made enquiries with the patients and also Doctors. Both the patients and Doctors informed him that patients suffered from food poisoning due to consumption of Shawarma from the petitioner establishment. There is food poisoning. Therefore, the FSO, Circle No.27, GHMC has lodged a complaint with Police, Alwal Police Station, who in turn registered a case in Crime No.37 of 2024 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 273 and 269 of IK,. The Investigating Officer has already issued notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., and investigation is pending. KL,J !r.P.r,ros.3373..4-l(r! turd il I ol2oli l0

13. When the FSO, Circle No.27, GHMC went to the petitioner establishment for inspection, he found it was closed. Therefore, he went to both the aforesaid hospitals and made enquiry ',^rith the patients and Doctors. Therefore, he was not in a position to collect the samples immediately. Holl,ever, the AFC, GHMC, Hyderabad vide notice dated 16.0I.2024 suspended the license of the petitioner and directed him not to continue the business activity till lurther orders from the authorities of GHMC. Petitioner has submitted his explanation on 29.01.2024 itself. L4. It is the contention of the petitioner herein that without considering the said explanation dated

29.O1.2024 submitted bv him to the notice dated

16.01.2024, the FSO, Circle No.27, GHMC issued proceedings dated 15.1O.2024. His license was expired on lO.Ll.2024 itselL Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the notice dated KL,J

16.01.2024 and proceedings dated 15.10.2024 are illegal and contra4r to the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2O06 and Rules and Regulations, 2011.

15. Section 32$) of the FSS Act, 20O6 says that any person, who is aggrieved by cancellation or suspension or revocation of license under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2O06 has to prefer an appeal to the Commissioner of Food Safety. In the present case, petitioner herein tailed to prefer any appeal challenging the suspension order dated 16.O1.2024.

16. It is settled law that though the a-lternative remedy of appeal is available, the writ petition is maintainable under the following 3 circumstances:

1. Violation of principles of natural justie. 2. Non adherence to the statutory proceedings. 3. The authoitg passed order has no jurisdiction.

17. The said principles was also laid down by the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Asst. Commissioner KL,J w.P.Nos.33734 of2024 and 7l I of2025 l of State Tax Vs. Commercial Steel Limitedl and also Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai2. Whereas, in the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner did not contend that the impugned suspension order dated 16.01.2024 is in violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of procedure laid down under the Food Safety and Standards Act,2006 and Rules and Regulations, 2O1I.

18. It is relevant to note that as per Section 32 (3) of FSS Act, 2006, the designated oflicer has power to suspend the license of FBO, forthwith, in the interest of public health for the reasons to be recorded in writing.

19. As discussed supra, in the order dated L6.O1.2O24 the AFC, GHMC, F{yderabad has specificaily mar+ti<ine-d the reasons. Therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said suspension order dated 16.01.2024 of the AFC, GHMC, flyderabad, he has to prefer an appeal under I Manu/SC/0S01i202 I '1tls8; s scc KL.J Section 32(4\ of the Food Safety and Standards Act,

2006. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, W.P.No.33734 of 2024 filed by the petitioner to declare the notice dated 16.01.2024, as illegal, is liable to be dismissed.

20. As discussed supra, the license of the petitioner was suspended on 16.01.2024.Yide the said notice, the AFC, GHMC, Hyderabad directed the petitioner not to continue the business. Even then, he has continued the business. When the FSO, Circle No.27, GHMC inspected the site, he found that establishment was closed and upon his request they opened the establishment lor inspection. During inspection it was lound that leftovers of the prepared food like Shawarma and Biryani r.r'as already disposed and tJ:ey have lifted the sample ol PM Snak Sause and other packed food articles which were lound to be available. The said fact was a-lso mentioned in the proceedings dated 15. 1O.2024 of the FSO, Circle No.27, GIIMC. KL,J r,\: :, \oe t-t73.r oI:ro_tLl uc 7t I oa2o!5 l4 I 2L. Vide intimation letter dated 15.10.2024 the FSO, Circle No.27, GHMC informed the petitioner that the aforesaid sample lifted by him from the establishment of the petitioner was sent to Food Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Nacharam, Hyderabad for analysis. Therefore, if the petitioner is desired to make an application to the FSO, Circle No.27, GHMC with a request to send the 4th part of the sample to any one of the laboratories under Rule 2.4.5.2 of the Rules, 2011 he may make an application by paying necessary fee by way of DD within 3 days. Petitioner did not submit any application with the aforesaid request. However, he has submitted reply dated 29.O1,.2024 stating that his business competitors might have given information to the FSO, Circle No.27, GHMC to damage his reputation.

22. It is also relevant to note that vide intimation dated

16.1L.2O24 the FSO, Circle No.27, GHMC informed the petitioner about the report dated 23. LO.2O24 submitted r i,\ :r,i t,r_1r.,:t-t KL,.' ,f ?i) i t5 by the Food Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Nachararn, Hyderabad saying that tJ:e sample is declarecl as sub- standard. He has also enclosed a copy of he said report dated 23.10.'2024 along with ttre said intimat.ion letter dated 16.11.2024. Therefore, the FSO, Circle No.27, GHMC informed the petitioner that if he is aggrieved by the same, he has to prefer an appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. petitioner herein failed to prefer any appeat.

23. The afore-stated facts would reveal that there are serious allegations against the petitioner herein. He has sold the aforesaid Shawarma, which is sub-star-rdard and on consumption of the same, several people suff'ered food poisoning and joined in hospitals. Despite suspending his license and directing him not to continue the business, he has continued his business and therefore, the FSO, Circle No.27, GHMC collected samples from the petitioner's establishment on 15.01.2024. The same were sent to the aforesaid laboratory and the said laboratory KL,J W l' \os,l l7lr oa.:O.lr ed ; r t ot 2025 16 .l vide its report dated 23. lO.2O24 found the said samples as sub-standard.

24. During the course of hearing, Sri Rama Rao Immaneni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.71L of 2025 contended that since the license of the petitioner was expired on 10. ll.2o24,liberty may be given to the petitioner to submit fresh application or an application seeking renewal of the said license and a direction may be given to the licensing authority to consider the same without reference to the suspension order 16.01.2024 and proceedings 15.1O.2024.

25. As per Section 32 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, petitioner has to submit an application seeking renewal of the license six months prior to the expiry. In the present case, the petitioner has not submitted such an application. Moreover, his application cannot be considered during subsistence of the suspension order dated L6.O1.2024. KL..J 17

26. As discussed supra, if the petitioner is ag3rieved by the suspension order dated 16.O1.2024, he has to prefer an appeal with the appellate authority in terms of Section 32gl of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 20O6. In the present case petitioner herein failed to prefer any appeal. He has fiIed W.P.No.33734 of 2024 challenging the said notice and the same is dismissed on the ground of availability ol statutory appeal. Therefore, petitioner cannot submit application either to renew his license or to issue lresh license during subsistence of suspension order dated 16.O1.2024.

27. In this regard, it is relevant to extract relevant provisions of the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Business) Regulations, 2Oll; reads as follows: "2. l.B.Suspension or can@llation of Registration Certificate or license: (4) Notutithstanding angthing contqined in these Regulations, the Registering or Licensing Authoitg KL,.] '"!J I'Ios:ll7lr ol 202r ,rnd 7l I ot 2O.l5 18 ,l maA suspend or cancel ang registration or license forthwith in the interest of public health for reasons to be rearded in utiting. (5) A suspension or cancellqtion of registration or license under these Regulations shall not entitle the Food Business Operator to ang compensation or refund of fee(s) paid in respect of the registration certificate or license or renewal thereof. (6) Afier 3 months from the date of cancellation under Regulation 2.1.8(3) aboue the Food Business Operator mag make a fresh application for Registration or licerrce to the conceruted autlwitg if all obseruqtions made in the improuement notice haue been complied with."

24. Thus, as per Regulation 2.1.8(41 of the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Business) Regulations, 2oll, the licensing authority is empowered to suspend or cancel a license in the interest of public health, provided reasons are recorded in writing. As per regulation 2.1.8(6) of the Food Safetlr and KL,J W.P.Nos.3373r .1 202 I and 7l I of _to2i l9 Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food. Business) Regulations, 2OIl it allows a food business operator to apply for a fresh license three months after cancellation, subject to compliance with improvement notices.

29. As discussed supra, in the present case, the AFC, GHMC, Hyderabad has specifically mentioned reasons in the suspension order dated 16.01 .2024. petitioner herein failed to preler any appeal challenging the sarne. Petitioner herein tailed to seek for sending the 4e part of the sample to ary of the laboratories mentioned und.er Rule 2.4.5.2 as requested by the FSO, Circle No.27, GHMC vide his proceedings dated IS.IO.2O24. Vide proceedings dated 15.10.2024 the FSO, Circle No.2T, GHMC has also directed the petitioner to discontinue the business operations till his FSSAI license is revoked.

30. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, petitioner herein failed to make out any case to interfere with the suspension order dated 16.Ot.2O24 issued by the AFC, I I iiL..i 20 GHMC, Hyderabad and also the proceedings dated

15.10.2024 issued by the FSO, Circle No.27, GHMC. Therelore, both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

31. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to prefer an appeal and also submit an application seeking fresh license in terms of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the Rules and Regulations, 20 11. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER \ 1 Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI one CC to SRI IMMANENI One CC to SRI H.SUDHAKARA RAO, Advocate (OPUC) One CC to SRI K.RAVI MOHAN, SC FOR GHMC (OPUC) Two CD Copies RAO, Advocate [OPUC] -RAMA To 2 3 4 5 SA GJP N^- HIGH COURT DATED:1310212025 COMMON OFIDER WP.Nos.33734 OF 2024 AND 711 of 2025 t /, :) !,+ I H1 14S 19 APN ? a a)F SP/: T (:.!. r,_() DISMISSING THE BOTH WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS. ) lD