The Bombay High Court on Friday directed a four-member panel of lawyers to conduct an immediate inspection of the state secretariat canteen after raising doubts over a high hygiene score awarded to the facility by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration. A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad instructed the team to visit the Mantralaya canteen and report its findings back to the court the same afternoon.
Court Mandates Equal Standards Across Establishments
The directives were issued during a hearing where the High Court emphasized that the food safety regulator must operate in a fair, impartial, and uniform manner across all eating establishments, including those managed by government and semi-government bodies.
The court’s observations followed the submission of a comprehensive chart by the FDA detailing inspections across Mumbai eateries. The document covered private clubs, three canteens located within the high court premises, and the Mantralaya canteen, which the agency had rated 98 percent clean.
Discrepancies in Inspection Records and Regulatory Action
Expressing skepticism over the high score, the bench asked the FDA to produce photo and video records taken during the inspection of the secretariat facility. The judges noted that while the agency presented inspection photos for Poornima restaurant, it gave a favorable assessment of the government canteen without presenting similar visual evidence.
The court also questioned the criteria applied by the FDA when deciding regulatory enforcement steps. Judges asked the agency to explain the circumstances under which some establishments received preliminary improvement notices, whereas others were issued direct suspension notices without prior warning.
Legal Arguments and Judicial Review
Appearing for Poornima restaurant, Senior Counsel Venkatesh Dhond informed the court that the regulator issued a suspension notice to the eatery without adhering to due legal process.
While acknowledging the overall regulatory efforts of the department, the High Court reiterated that enforcement drives must remain non-discriminatory and should not target private properties exclusively. The bench scheduled further proceedings for Friday afternoon following the receipt of the inspection panel’s report.
