Bombay HC Directs Auto-Revocation of Food License Suspensions Once Compliance Is Confirmed
The Bombay High Court told food safety authorities that suspensions must be revoked automatically on compliance, without forcing businesses to return to court each time.
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad, on 28 August 2026 ordered food safety authorities to automatically revoke license suspensions the moment an establishment's auto-generated inspection report confirms compliance. The direction arose from Writ Petition No. 9946 of 2026 filed by Siddharth Agro, a proprietary concern engaged in the procurement, chilling, storage and supply of raw milk to large dairy processing units within Maharashtra. The bench found that a pattern of regulatory inaction — where authorities fail to lift suspensions even after deficiencies are cured — forces compliant businesses into avoidable litigation and causes serious financial harm. The court extended the principle to all similar cases, not merely the petitioner's.
Siddharth Agro's License Suspended in July 2026
Siddharth Agro holds a valid license under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011. On 15 July 2026, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 — the food safety authorities — suspended the license on grounds of non-compliance with applicable regulations. The proprietor, Mr. Siddharth Vishnu Hinge, challenged the suspension order before the Bombay High Court.
Pursuant to representations made by the petitioner, the establishment was re-inspected on 29 July 2026. The State, appearing through Additional Government Pleader Mr. P.P. Kakade with AGP Mrs. Pooja Patil, relied on an affidavit dated 21 August 2026 filed by Respondent No. 3. That affidavit stated that several deficiencies continued to persist after the re-inspection and had not been rectified, and therefore the suspension could not be revoked.
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manoj Badgujar, countered that the deficiencies had since been rectified. He argued that a fresh inspection was necessary to capture the subsequent developments, and that if the establishment was found to be compliant, the licence ought to be restored without further delay.
The Wider Pattern the Bench Had Already Noticed
The bench did not treat the dispute as an isolated instance. The court recorded that in several matters listed before it, establishments had duly complied with pointed deficiencies, yet suspension or cancellation orders were not revoked. The bench described the consequence of such inaction as “extremely serious,” noting that it prevents an establishment from carrying on its business, causes financial loss, and produces a cascading effect on employees and supply chains.
The court was direct in its assessment: there is no justification for requiring an establishment to approach the High Court merely to obtain revocation of an order that has ceased to have any efficacy. Such litigation, in the court's view, is wholly avoidable and unnecessarily burdens both the establishment and the court.
The bench pointed to an earlier order it had passed in Writ Petition No. 9905 of 2026 (M/s. Gurunanak Dairy & Sweets v. The Union of India & Ors.), where the same pattern of inaction had compelled the bench to impose compensatory payment upon the respondents. The court's reasoning in the present matter built directly on that precedent: an establishment which has cured its deficiencies cannot be penalised further on account of the authorities' inaction.
The Auto-Revocation Direction and Its Scope
To address both the immediate case and the broader pattern, the bench laid down a clear prospective direction. Once the respondents are satisfied, through the auto-generated inspection report, that deficiencies have been duly rectified as per applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, they must forthwith revoke the suspension or cancellation order. No further intervention by the establishment — and no further application to the court — should be necessary.
The bench applied the same principle to Siddharth Agro's case directly. The impugned order dated 15 July 2026 was directed to stand automatically revoked upon issuance of the auto-generated report evidencing compliance, provided the petitioner is found to be legally compliant. The respondents were further directed to take all consequential steps, including issuing formal orders, without requiring the petitioner to approach the court again.
As an immediate step, the bench directed Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to conduct a fresh inspection of the petitioner's establishment on Monday, 31 August 2026, between 2:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. On completion of the inspection, the respondents were required to prepare a compliance report and furnish a copy of the auto-generated report — indicating marks and percentage of compliance — to the petitioner.
Outcome
The Division Bench directed a fresh inspection of Siddharth Agro's establishment on 31 August 2026. The suspension order dated 15 July 2026 was held to stand automatically revoked upon a compliant auto-generated inspection report, with all consequential formal orders to follow without any further court intervention. The bench also issued a general direction applicable to all comparable cases: authorities must forthwith revoke suspension or cancellation orders once the auto-generated compliance report confirms that deficiencies have been rectified. The petition was listed for further directions on 3 September 2026 in the urgent Supplementary Board.