BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 28.11.2025

PRONOUNCED ON : 19.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

W.P.(MD)No.31738 of 2025

AND

W.M.P.(MD)No.24914 of 2025

M.Thanga Muniyandi ... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Commissioner,

Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration,

Chennai 600 006.

2. The Designated Officer,

Deputy Director of Tamil Nadu Food Safety

and Drug Administrative Office,

Visvanathapuram, Madurai – 625 014.

3. The Food Safety Officer,

Kallikudi and T.Kallupatti Division,

Deputy Director of Tamil Nadu Food Safety

and Drug Administrative Office,

Visvanathapuram, Madurai – 625 014. ... Respondents

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.3218/A2/2025/Ou.Pa.A dated 15.10.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to de-seal the

petitioner shop namely M/s.Jeya Meena Cool Drinks, Kallikudi Main Road, Kallikudi, Madurai District.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Vijayaraja For Respondents : Mr.M.Gangatharan, Government Advocate.

* * *

O R D E R

Heard both sides.

2.The writ petitioner is running a petty shop in the petition-

mentioned premises. On 12.10.2025, the police attached to Kallikudi police station inspected the petitioner's shop premises. According to the jurisdictional police, the petitioner was keeping banned Gutkha products. The writ petitioner was taken to the police station and Crime No.195 of 2025 was registered on the file of Kallikudi police station for the offences under Sections 296(b), 132, 123 BNS and 24(1) of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003. The petitioner was granted bail on the same day. While so on 15.10.2025, the third respondent came to the petitioner's shop and issued the impugned order calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs.1 Lakh towards fine and compounding penalty. The petitioner's shop was also sealed and his food license was temporarily cancelled. Challenging the same, this writ petition came to be filed.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon me to grant relief as prayed for.

4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the the writ petitioner was a third time offender and therefore, the proceedings issued in R.No.8941/2019/S1/FSSA dated 02.07.2025 issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety, Chennai-6 would come into play. The said proceedings read as follows:-

He called upon this Court to dismiss the writ petition.

5. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

6.The issue raised in this writ petition is no longer res integra. In the decision reported in 2025 2 Writ LR 454 (The Commissioner of Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department and Others Vs. S.Subramanian and Others), the Division Bench was concerned with a similar order dated 04.01.2024 issued by the Commissioner of Tamil Nadu Food Safety which provided for levy of compounding penalty for selling banned food items. However, in the case on hand, I am concerned with the subsequent proceedings dated 02.07.2025 issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety which has already been extracted above.

7.The impugned action has three components:-

a) Suspension of the petitioner's food business license.

b) Sealing of his shop premises and c) Levy of compounding penalty.

8.As regards the first component, the petitioner will have to necessarily file an appeal or avail any other statutory remedy. The scope of this writ petition is confined to testing the legality of sealing the premises and levying compounding penalty.

8.What calls for consideration is whether the Commissioner of Food Safety could have authorised the Food Safety Officer to levy c