Quashed

M/s Lazeez Restaurant and Lagan Banquet Hall v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC1 Mar 2013CWJC/4489/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged suspension of its food outlet licence issued by Food Safety Officer for non-compliance with hygiene standards. Court held suspension invalid as authorities failed to verify compliance before action.

What did the court decide?

Order of suspension dated 16.02.2013 quashed; liberty granted to authorities to inspect premises for compliance.

M/s Lazeez Restaurant and Lagan Banquet Hall Vs The State… — Consumer Protection | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4489 of 2013

¶2

====================================================== M/S Lazeez Restaurant & Lagan Banquet Hall, a Proprietary concern, having its place of business at Yogendra Mukherjee Road, P.S. Town and District Muzaffarpur through its Proprietor Shri Ravi Ranjan Jaiswal, son of late Dinesh Chandra Prasad, Resident of Chhoti Saraiyaganj, P.S. Town and District-Muzaffarpur.

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus

¶4

The State Of Bihar through the Designated Officer, Food, Safety and Standard Act, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur Campus, Sadar Hospital, Muzaffarpur. 2. The Food Safety Officer, Sadar Hospital, District-Muzaffarpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶5

2 01-03-2013 An inspection was held by the Food Safety Officer in the premises of the petitioner on 08.12.2012 and, he, vide his inspection report, as contained in Annexure-6, found some shortfalls in maintaining the standards of hygiene and sanitary in the premises. Hence, specific directions were issued to it to remove the shortfalls. Followed by the said inspection report, an improvement notice was also issued to the petitioner by the Designated Officer, contained in memo no.207 dated 12.12.2012, vide Annexure-7. By this notice, 14 days time was allowed to the petitioner to improve the sanitation and hygiene in the premises as per provisions contained in Section 32 of the Food Safety & Standard Act, 2006.

¶6

Patna High Court CWJC No.4489 of 2013 (2) dt.01-03-2013

¶7

¶8

Stand of the petitioner is that it had complied with all the directions issued by the Food Safety Officer in his inspection report dated 08.12.2012. However, as there was no direction to him, either in the inspection report or in the notice dated 12.12.2012, to report back about compliance, it did not formally inform the authorities in this regard. Grievance is that thereafter without verifying whether the petitioner had complied with the directions or not, licence of the petitioner has been suspended for 90 days by the Food Safety Officer, vide his order dated 16.02.2013, as contained in Annexure-8, and it has been directed to keep the business premises closed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before passing the order of suspension of licence, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor the Food Safety Officer tried to hold fresh inspection and ascertain whether his directions had been complied with or not.

¶10

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that earlier also inspection was held and directions were issued, but petitioner had never reported compliance of the directions.

¶11

It cannot be disputed that as the petitioner is running a food outlet, it has to comply with the provisions of Food Safety & Standard Act, 2006 and the regulations framed thereunder. If their

¶12

Patna High Court CWJC No.4489 of 2013 (2) dt.01-03-2013

¶13

¶14

provisions are not strictly complied with in letter and spirit the authorities have the legal authority to take action against it. But, if in spite of directions and notice petitioner does not remove the deficiencies, the same has to be ascertained and then only action has to be taken. After issue of the notice dated 12.12.2012, the respondents were required to ascertain whether directions had been complied with or not. It was open to the Food Safety Officer to hold a fresh inspection after 14 days period allowed to the petitioner to remove the deficiencies and if he was not satisfied with the compliance then it was open to him to initiate action against it. In the said notice dated 12.12.2012, there is apparently no direction to the petitioner to report back compliance. Hence, taking advantage of this omission, petitioner is claiming that it had complied with the directions and effected improvement in the sanitary and hygienic conditions of the premises, but had not reported back.

¶15

In the circumstances, the order dated 16.02.2013, as contained in Annexure-8, is quashed on technical grounds. The authorities are granted liberty to hold an inspection of the premises and check up whether the directions issued earlier have been complied with by the petitioner or not. In addition, they are also at liberty to check up whether the other provisions of Food Safety &

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.4489 of 2013 (2) dt.01-03-2013

¶17

¶18

Standard Act, 2006 as well as Regulation, 2011 are being satisfied by the petitioner or not. If they find that in spite of earlier orders the same has not been done by the petitioner they will be at liberty to initiate any fresh action against it.

¶19

The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

¶20

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

¶21

Arvind/-

M/s Lazeez Restaurant and Lagan Banquet Hall v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Lazeez Restaurant and Lagan Banquet Hall v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagendra Kumar Vs The Managing Director Of Bihar State Power holding Company Ltd. and Ors.

National Education Development Trust and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Pradeep Kumar Thakur and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Harendra Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Jaimula Khatoon Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Shiv Kumar Bhagat Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.