Back
Punjab & Haryana HC Delivers Knockout Blow to Overzealous Food Safety Seizures
In a sharp rebuke to administrative overreach, the has ruled that Food Safety Officers (FSOs) under the cannot seize plant and machinery from food businesses. Justice Jagmohan Bansal quashed the seizure in , emphasizing that such draconian measures—impacting business rights—belong solely to courts after conviction or via Designated Officers following precise protocols.
This decision, echoed in legal circles as reported by outlets like LiveLaw, underscores the need for strict adherence to statutory limits amid rising complaints of adulterated food products.
Adulterated Milk Sparks Raid and Seizure Drama
The saga unfolded in Kaithal, Haryana, where M/s Singla Traders, a dairy operator holding FSSAI License No. 10823009000026, faced heat from villagers led by Sarpanch Krishna Kumar. A complaint alleged the firm on Pabsar Road was churning out adulterated milk laced with harmful substances, posing cancer risks and flouting regulations.
The , chaired by Haryana Minister Anil Vij on , ordered the premises sealed and samples tested at Shri Ram Laboratory, New Delhi. Singla's license was already cancelled, and prosecution launched against its proprietor for repeated substandard production.
FSO Dr. Pawan Chahal raided the site that day, seizing machinery worth ₹17.2 lakh—including cream separators, pasteurizers, and storage tanks—citing Deputy Commissioner directives and public safety. The equipment was sealed and left in the custody of site supervisor Rakesh Kumar.
Singla Traders rushed to the High Court via , seeking release of the assets.
Petitioner's Arsenal: Statutory Powers Don't Stretch That Far
Singla's counsel, and , hammered . They argued FSOs can only sample, search, seize food articles (), or prosecute ()—not yank machinery. Prohibition on equipment use post-conviction is a court's domain (Section 33), while emergencies require Designated Officer notices and Commissioner approval (Section 34). No such steps were followed; it was a blatant power grab.
With license gone and prosecution underway, they urged: why cripple the business further without judicial oversight?
State's Defense: Habitual Culprits Demand Extreme Measures
Haryana's counsel , backed by FSO Chahal's inputs, painted Singla as a "habitual offender" repeatedly caught with unsafe milk. License cancellation and FIRs were in motion, but repetition justified Deputy Commissioner-directed seizure for public protection. They flagged for sealing premises during probes.
Yet, even they conceded via Chahal's letter: grants no sealing power—prompting the urgent plea for delegated authority.
Court's Razor-Sharp Dissection of the Law
Justice Bansal dissected the provisions meticulously. Sections 33 (court-ordered prohibitions post-conviction if health risks persist), 34 (emergency notices via Designated Officer to Commissioner), 38 (seize food articles only), 41 (search and seize food/adulterants), and 42 (prosecution) form a "penal and draconian" framework, demanding strict interpretation to safeguard constitutional trade freedoms.
No conviction existed; no emergency procedure under Section 34. FSO's action, though on Deputy Commissioner nod and committee instructions, bypassed mandates. Rule 2.1.3(4) allows temporary sealing for investigation , not outright machinery seizure—unpleaded anyway.
"Power to seize food articles does not include power to seize plant and machinery,"
the court held, setting aside the November 14 notice.
Key Observations from the Bench
"Seizure of premises or plant and machinery entails depriving a citizen from his right of business and trade guaranteed by of the . Thus, those provisions cannot be read liberally. Those need to be interpreted strictly."
"The Food Safety Officer is not empowered to seize plant and machinery. In emergency, the Designated Officer after following procedure prescribed under has power to impose prohibitions."
"Machinery has been seized by Food Safety Officer who has no power to seize plant and machinery... Concededly, there is non-compliance of procedure prescribed in 2006 Act."
Victory for Singla, But Probe Continues
The impugned seizure order stands quashed. Machinery returns to Singla, but Justice Bansal clarified: no opinion on product quality, license cancellation, or prosecution proceeds unaffected.
This ruling fortifies boundaries for FSOs nationwide, curbing ad-hoc seizures while preserving tools against genuine threats via courts or protocols. Food businesses breathe easier, but habitual violators face judicial scrutiny—not summary shutdowns.
