Madras High Court Stays Suspension of KFC License in ThoothukudiMadras High Court Stays Suspension of KFC License in Thoothukudi The Madras High Court has temporarily halted an order by the Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department (FSDA) suspending the license of Sapphire Foods India Ltd, the operator of the KFC fast food chain in Thoothukudi. Grounds for Suspension and Applicant’s Arguments The FSDA suspended the license based on the use of Magnesium Silicate Synthetic, arguing that it violated regulations prohibiting the reuse of edible oil. However, Sapphire Foods argued that Magnesium Silicate Synthetic was a permitted filtration medium and not a banned substance. Court’s Findings Justice GR Swaminathan found prima facie merit in Sapphire Foods’ argument. The court noted that the regulations did not explicitly prohibit the reuse of edible oil, but rather advised against it and imposed a three-time limit on reheating oil to prevent trans fat formation. Violation of High Court Directive The court also observed that the designated FSDA officer had violated a previous Madras High Court directive prohibiting public interviews during or after inspections. This was intended to protect the reputation of food business operators. Decision and Legal Team The court stayed the suspension order, noting that the licensing authorities had not followed proper procedure by not issuing an improvement notice before suspending the license. The petitioner was represented by Mr. Sathish Parasaran, Senior Advisor to Mr. Vijayan Subramaniam, while the defendant was represented by Mr. K. Balasubramanian, Special Government Advocate. Case Details * Case Title: Sapphire Foods India Ltd v The Commissioner * Case Number: WP(MD) no. 16192 of 2024 * Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 286
The Madras High Court has stayed an order of the Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department suspending the licence of Sapphire Foods India Ltd, operator of fast food chain KFC in Thoothukudi.
Judge GR Swaminathan agreed with the applicants and noted that the order had to be considered on several grounds. The court noted that under the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, the authorities had to first issue an improvement notice and in case of non-compliance could suspend the licence. In the present case, the court noted that the authorities had suspended the licence directly in the first instance.
“As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant, the order can be contravened on various grounds. Section 32(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 provides for issuance of improvement notices; if the food business operator fails to comply with the improvement notice, his licence can be suspended. In the present case, the licence was suspended forthwith in the first instancethe court noted.
By an order dated July 4, 2024, the authorities suspended the licence of a KFC outlet in Thoothukudi. The primary reason for suspending the licence was that KFC had used Magnesium Silicate Synthetic. The authorities argued that as per the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulation, 2011, edible oil could not be reused and since there was a violation of the rules, the licence was rightly suspended.
The applicant, on the other hand, pointed out that synthetic magnesium silicate was not a prohibited substance and was a permitted filtration medium.
The court found prima facie merit in the applicant’s argument. The court noted that under the 2011 Regulations, Regulation 3(e) states that the re-use of cooking oil should be avoided and Regulation 3(j) states that oil should be reheated a maximum of three times to avoid the formation of trans fat and that it is ideal to use it only once, if possible.
The court noted that while Regulation 3(e) was a kind of advisory, Regulation 3(j) was mandatory. The court thus noted that the authorities could not claim that the reuse of edible oil was prohibited.
The court also observed that though the Madras High Court had earlier restrained the designated officers from giving public interviews at the time of or after the completion of the inspection, in the instant case the designated officer had violated the directive. The court added that the reason for issuing such a directive was to ensure that the reputation and goodwill of the Food Business Operator was not unduly damaged.
Although the court was initially inclined to issue a warning to the designated officer for contempt of court, when it was informed that there had been no wilful neglect, the court refrained from initiating proceedings for contempt of court.
Applicant’s lawyer: Mr. Sathish Parasaran, Senior Advisor to Mr. Vijayan Subramaniam
Defendant’s attorney: Mr. K. Balasubramanian, Special Government Advocate
Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 286
Case title: Sapphire Foods India Ltd v The Commissioner
Case number: WP(MD) no. 16192 of 2024
