Authors: Shivani Bhandary, Senior Associate
Introduction
Maharashtra has seen a wave of active FDA inspections across restaurants, clubs and food establishments in recent months, and the regulator isn’t slowing down. Beyond enforcement, the FDA is rolling out fresh regulations and outright bans at a brisk pace — developments every food business operator must track, because the ground rules are shifting fast.
When an inspection doesn’t go well, the route contemplated by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is graduated: the Designated Officer issues an Improvement Notice under Section 32(1) (minimum 14–15 days to comply), followed by re- inspection; if compliance is found wanting, the operator is heard and asked to explain; and if the explanation is unsatisfactory, a Show Cause Notice precedes suspension and, ultimately, cancellation of the licence. That is the procedure under the Act.
The Regulations, however, tell a different story. Regulation 2.1.8(4) of the FSS (Licensing and Registration) Regulations, 2011 opens with a non-obstante clause allowing the authority to suspend or cancel a licence forthwith in the interest of public health, for reasons to be recorded in writing — no Improvement Notice, no graduated sequence. The FDA/FSSAI have increasingly relied on this very provision to move directly to suspension and cancellation, and recent Mumbai licence actions bear this out.
What Does the Act Say and Where Does Redressal Lie?
An operator aggrieved by an Improvement Notice, or by the refusal, suspension, revocation or cancellation of a licence, may appeal to the Commissioner of Food Safety under Section 32(4); but the limitation is short — fifteen days from service of the decision, or the compliance period specified in the notice, whichever expires earlier (Section 32(5)) — and the Commissioner’s decision is, on the statute’s own terms, final.
The second stream governs adjudication of penalties: contraventions attracting monetary penalty are adjudicated by an Adjudicating Officer under Section 68, an officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate, vested with the powers of a civil court.
It is the adjudication stream — not the licensing stream — that feeds the appellate hierarchy. An order of the Adjudicating Officer is appealable to the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal under Section 70, a single-member forum presided over by a former District Judge, within thirty days of receipt of the order (extendable by a further thirty days on sufficient cause under the FSS Rules, 2011). The Tribunal exercises the powers of a civil court, and the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to proceedings before it (Section 71(5)). A further appeal lies to the High Court under Section 71(6) within sixty days on any question of fact or law, condonable up to a further sixty days.
The remedy against a forthwith suspension or cancellation, however, lies in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Because such action is taken under the non-obstante route (Regulation 2.1.8(4), mirrored in the proviso to Section 32(3)) and the Commissioner’s Section 32(4) decision is final, the appellate ladder to the FSAT does not reach it. The alternative-remedy bar to a writ is, in any event, relaxed where the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction, in breach of the audi alteram partem rule, or — as the provision itself commands — without reasons recorded in writing. An order that recites “interest of public health” as a bare conclusion, unsupported by a reasoned foundation disclosing application of mind, is on that footing vulnerable on settled natural-justice grounds.
Recent Developments in Maharashtra
Maharashtra’s FDA has placed the entire milk supply chain under statewide surveillance (order dated 3 July 2026) following detection of synthetic milk adulterated with urea, caustic soda and formalin, with the first enforcement phase yielding roughly 360 raids, 235 FIRs and 350 arrests.
Separately, a gazette notification dated 30 July 2026 imposes a one-year statewide ban under Section 30(2)(a) of the FSS Act, 2006 on analogue (non-dairy) paneer — Maharashtra being the second state after Chhattisgarh — following FDA sampling in which 35.4% of samples failed prescribed standards.
Suggested Action Steps
- Conduct a self-audit against the FSSAI Schedule 4 checklist before the inspector does.
- Keep procurement, supplier-analysis (Form E) and staff medical/training records inspection-ready.
- Treat any Improvement Notice as an urgent, correctable warning — file a proper, documented compliance report within the stipulated time. If food samples are collected at the time of inspection, always write an application to the inspector for a sample to be provided to you as well.
Shivani Bhandary, Senior Associate, Solomon & Co.
About Solomon & Co.
Solomon & Co. (Advocates & Solicitors) was founded in 1909 and is amongst India’s oldest law-firms. The Firm is a full-service firm that provides legal service to Indian and international companies and high net-worth individuals on all aspects of Indian law.
“Disclaimer”
The information contained in this article is intended solely to provide general guidance on matters of interest for the personal use of the reader, who accepts full responsibility for its use. The application and impact of laws can vary widely based on the specific facts involved. As such, it should not be used as a substitute for consultation with a competent adviser. Before making any decision or taking any action, the reader should always consult a professional adviser relating to the relevant article posting.
Copyright © Solomon & Co. 2026, All rights reserved.
