Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 4364
High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
M/s. Sakthi Arrkay Traders & Caterers Private Limited, rep. by its Managing Director S. Krishnan
Versus
The Food Safety Officer & Others
W.P. Nos. 27978 & 28557 of 2014
Decided on: 15-12-2014
For the Petitioner:AR.L. Sundaresan, S.C, for C. Prakasam, Advocate.
For the Respondent: P.H. Arvind Pandian, Addl. A.G Assisted by P. Sanjay Gandhi, Addl. G.P.
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 - Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Enter into a lease agreement - Shift his entire Canteen to new College - Order of allotment - After petitioner ran Canteen for three months successfully Dean of Madras Medical College issued an order of allotment permitting petitioner to run Canteen on a monthly rent - Though order of allotment required petitioner to enter into an agreement on a stamp paper same did not materialize – Consequently petitioner could not pay rent as it was not accepted by respondent without a formal agreement - Therefore after giving a representation petitioner filed a writ petition seeking issue of a writ of Mandamus to direct Dean to pass orders on merits on their representation - Said writ petition was admitted - After coming to know of writ petition Director of Medical Education issued a communication directing Dean as well as petitioner to enter into a lease agreement - Despite said direction nothing happened – However in March petitioner was directed to have an extension counter for his Canteen at new premises of College at Old Jail Campus - But within two months petitioner was informed that students wanted to run Hostel Canteen by themselves and that therefore petitioner should vacate premises – However it was informed that petitioner could shift his entire Canteen to new College premises at old Jail premises and start functioning there until further orders – Held, file produced by Food Safety Officer discloses some more shocking facts - Food Safety Officer had sent of used cooking oil from a liter fry pan and sent it to Food Analyst - He had also sent samples of processed water iodized salt and turmeric powder - Water sent for analysis was actually intended for preparation of food meaning thereby that it was not for direct human consumption - Court do not know whether drinking water supplied by Municipal Corporation to all of us would satisfy standards applied by Food Analyst to water in terms of Regulation of FSS Regulation 2011 – Similarly iodized salt even as per report was in a pre-packed condition bought from a reputed company - Court do not know how petitioner was made responsible for lesser iodine content - Insofar as cooking oil is concerned court have already indicated that instead of taking oil intended to be used for cooking Food Safety Officer had taken oil which was already used for cooking - Court also unable to understand as to why Food Safety Officer did not take a food item already prepared by petitioner for testing but took turmeric powder water used cooking oil and packed salt for testing – Therefore court of considered view that respondents have taken action against petitioner for extraneous reasons which court unable to decipher - Since arbitrary exercise of power strikes at very root of fairness guaranteed under Article 14 court unable to sustain action taken by respondents - Manner in which Food Safety Officer drew samples also does not appear to be in accordance with law - A procedure is prescribed by Food Safety and Standards Act for drawing samples and sending them for analysis - This has also not been followed - After requesting petitioner to run Canteen at a time when Co-operative Canteen ran into a financial as well as labor crisis it is not fair on part of respondents to ask petitioner to shut down even without a breathing time and without an opportunity of hearing - Writ petitions are allowed
1. The petitioner was selected by the Dean of the Madras Medical College in December 2008, to run a Canteen for the Madras Medical College Doctors, Students and Staff. The petitioner was obliged to run the Canteen with their own investment on a trial basis for sometime, to test the quality and consumer satisfaction.
2. After the petitioner ran the Canteen for three months successfully, the Dean of the Madras Medical College issued an order of allotment dated 31.3.2009, permitting the petitioner to run the Canteen on a monthly rent of Rs.20,000/-. Though the order of allotment required the petitioner to enter into an agreement on a stamp paper, the same did not materialise. Consequently, the petitioner could not pay the rent, as it was not accepted by the respondent without a formal agreement.
3. Therefore, after giving a representation on 11.11.2010, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.16068 of 2012 seeking the issue of a writ of Mandamus to direct the Dean to pass orders on merits, on their representation. The said writ petition was admitted on 26.6.2012.
4. After coming to know of the writ petition, the Director of Medical Education issued a communication on 03.10.2012 directing the Dean as well as the petitioner to enter into a lease agreement. Despite the said direction, nothing happened.
5. However, in March 2014, the petitioner was directed to have an extension counter for his Canteen, at the new premises of the College at the Old Jail Campus. But, within two months, the petitioner was informed that the students wanted to run the Hostel Canteen by themselves and that therefore, the petitioner should vacate the premises. However, it was informed that the petitioner could shift his entire Canteen to the new College premises at the old Jail premises and start functioning there, until further orders.
6. As against the communication dated 21.5.2014, by which the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises and to shift the entire Canteen to the new College premises, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 15226 of 2014. It appears that when the said writ petition came up for hearing, this Court passed an order directing the respondents to produce the file and also give a report as to why public auction was not conducted for running the Canteen and also as to why the rent, electricity charges and water charges were not collected for the past two years.
7. Thereafter, the Dean passed an order dated 10.6.2014 calling upon the petitioner to vacate the Canteen premises within 48 hours, on or before 12.6.2014. I do not know what happened to the said letter. It was not even challenged by the petitioner.
8. But, it appears that on 11.10.2014, the first respondent, namely the Food Safety Officer inspected the Canteen and gave an inspection note directing the petitioner to carry out certain improvements. Accordingly, the petitioner claims to have closed down the Canteen and spent Rs.3.00 Lakhs to carry out the improvements. After doing so, the petitioner sent a letter on 14.10.2014, requesting the first respondent to make an inspection and allow him to run the Canteen. But, no inspection was carried out. Therefore, on 20.10.2014, the petitioner came up with the first writ petition W.P.No.27978 of 2014 seeking the issue of a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents from vacating the petitioner from the Canteen run by them. On the same day, namely, 20.10.2014, while ordering notice of motion, I passed an interim order directing the respondents not to evict the petitioner from running the Canteen.
9. Pursuant to the aforesaid interim order, the petitioner appears to have opened the Canteen and started running the same. But, on 29.10.2014, the Food Safety Officer sealed the Canteen, on the ground that there was an inspection conducted on 28.10.2014 and that during inspection, it was found that the petitioner had not rectified five defects earlier pointed out. Aggrieved by the sudden sealing of the Canteen, the peti
