Food Licence Suspension Cannot Continue After ‘Exemplar’ Re-Inspection: Bombay High Court Restores Hotel's Licence

After an inspection on 7 July 2026 scored Hotel Alankar 69%, the Designated Officer suspended its licence forthwith on 8 July 2026 under the proviso to Section 32(3) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, citing sale of alcohol and other beverages without licence, a common frying machine and storage for vegetarian and non-vegetarian food, and used oil discharged into the drain (paras 4, 14). A re-inspection on 31 July 2026 scored it 106 of 110 (97%) (para 4). The appeal was dismissed on 19 August 2026, and the petition was amended to challenge both orders (para 3). The State relied on an unanswered 2025 improvement notice, an ‘unsafe’ oil sample and operation during suspension (paras 6, 8-9).

The question was whether continued suspension was justified after the deficiencies were rectified (para 11). On the respondents' own grading, 97% is ‘exemplar’, yet the appellate order disclosed no consideration of the re-verification report; ignoring it makes re-verification futile, and continued suspension can be ordered only on a finding of continued non-compliance (paras 17, 21-22). Whether the cooking-oil problem persists can be judged only if the business is allowed to operate, and no cancellation proceedings had been started (para 21). Disregarding the report because the proprietor did not know Schedule IV was "a course unknown to law" (para 25). Following the Nagpur Bench in Wardha Tahsil Go-Dugdha, deficiencies such as the technical-person condition did not show harm to public health (paras 26-27). Selling product categories not covered by the licence does not by itself harm public health, and operating during suspension attracts penalties under Sections 55 and 63, not continued suspension (paras 28-29). Suspension for non-compliances that may harm public health "cannot be continued infinitely" (para 30).