Authorities may exercise the power to seal business premises for violations of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2011; however, courts may grant relief in the form of de-sealing where the petitioner provides an undertaking against future illegal activities and the business livelihood is significantly impacted.

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated

12.03.2026. The order is passed by the competent authority under the Food Safety Act, whereby the petitioner's shop was ordered to be sealed.

2.The case of the respondents is that upon inspection, it was found that the petitioner was selling the banned tobacco products and 29 packets of Ganesh tobacco, which is a banned product was found to be in the shop of the petitioner and the petitioner was found to be selling the same. Earlier also the petitioner was involved in a similar offense. Therefore, proceedings are initiated underway to take further proceedings to prosecute the petitioner and to collect the fine amount, in the interregnum the shop is sealed.

3.The Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents have no power or jurisdiction whatsoever to seal the shop of the petitioner and the petitioner's shop cannot be closed eternally without any opportunity or further proceedings in that regard.

4.Per Contra, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that when the petitioner is a repeat offender, the authority have the power to seal the premises as per Regulation 2.3.4 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2011.

5.I have also considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

6.The case of the petitioner is that the respondents have no jurisdiction cannot be accepted as they are entitled to seal the shop as per the rule quoted above. But however, I take into consideration that this is the second attempt, I am of the view that an opportunity can be granted to the petitioner since it is pleaded that the livelihood of the petitioner is being affected, upon being questioned by this Court, without prejudice to their submission to be made in the instant case, the learned counsel stated that an affidavit of undertaking that they will not henceforth deal with any banned tobacco product in any manner whatsoever will be filed is recorded.

7.Considering the fact that the petitioner's shop is closed from

15.03.2026 for more than a month for now and considering the quantity, I am of the view that the petitioner's prayer to open the shop can be considered by this Court on the condition to file an affidavit of undertaking before the second respondent. It will also be open for the second respondent to proceed further with reference to the imposition of penalty or other proceedings in the manner known to law.

8.This writ petition is ordered on the following terms:

(i)Within two weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order, the petitioner shall file an affidavit of undertaking that they will not in any manner indulge in selling the banned tobacco products whatsoever in the shop before the second respondent.

(ii)Upon filing of the same, the impugned order dated 12.03.2026 shall be revoked, inasmuch as sealing of the petitioner's shop is concerned, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue the business. It will be open for the second respondent to continue the proceedings under the Rules and the Act for Prosecuting or collection of the penalty amount, as the case may be.

(iii)No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.