Prohibitory orders under the Food Safety and Standards Act must comply with the principles of natural justice, including providing a show cause notice before license suspension.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the 3^rd respondent issuing prohibitory orders against the petitioner to stop all of its activities till the compliance of Food Safety and Standards Rules and Regulations. By impugned order, the 3^rd respondent also suspended the license of the petitioner issued to him for manufacturing of Sago.

2. The petitioner is carrying on business in manufacturing of Starch and Sago from Tapioca Roots in the name and style of Arulmurugan Starch Industries. The 3^rd respondent, who conducted inspection in the manufacturing site of the petitioner on 30.10.2021 issued impugned order prohibiting the petitioner from continuing his manufacturing activity and also suspended the license mainly on the ground that the petitioner indulged in using unauthorised, harmful chemicals and acid in the manufacturing of sago. It is also stated by the 3^rd respondent in his order that the petitioner has violated the conditions of the license issued by the Department. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 3^rd respondent has no power to issue prohibitory orders under Section 34 of Food Safety and Standards Act and hence the impugned order is the one passed without jurisdiction. The learned counsel further submitted that the order of the 3^rd respondent suspending the license issued to the petitioner was passed even without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner and hence the same is vitiated for failure to comply with the natural justice principles.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that under Section 34 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, if the Designated Officer is satisfied that the health risk condition exists in respect of any Food business, he can issue emergency prohibition notice prohibiting the manufacture from continuing his business. The learned counsel further submitted that during inspection of the petitioner's manufacturing unit, it was found that the petitioner was indulged in using hazardous chemicals and acids in manufacturing food products and therefore, the impugned order has been passed prohibiting him from continuing the business till he complies with the provisions of the Act and the Rules.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent would submit that the petitioner is bound to follow the statutory rules and regulations imposed by the department and as such the impugned action taken by the 3^rd respondent for petitioner's failure to comply with the Safety Rules and Regulations is in accordance with law.

6. Section 34 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, reads as follows:

34. Emergency prohibition notices and orders.-

(1) If the Designated Officer is satisfied that the health risk condition exists with respect to any food business, he may, after a notice served on the food business operator (in this Act referred to as an "emergency prohibition notice"), apply to the Commissioner of Food Safety for imposing the prohibition.

(2) If the Commissioner of Food Safety is satisfied, on the application of such an officer, that the health risk condition exists with respect to any food business, he shall, by an order, impose the prohibition.

(3) The Designated Officer shall not apply for an emergency prohibition order unless, at least one day before