Bombay High Court Clears Reopening of Five MCA Eateries After Sharp Rebuke to Maharashtra FDA

The Bombay High Court has allowed five eateries operating at the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) premises in Mumbai’s Bandra-Kurla Complex to reopen, bringing a temporary end to a dispute over their food licences and regulatory compliance.

The decision came after the court questioned the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over its refusal to withdraw the suspension of the restaurants’ licences even after a fresh inspection found that the establishments were largely compliant with food safety requirements. The inspection reportedly recorded an overall compliance level of 88 percent.

The case has drawn attention to the balance between strict enforcement of food safety regulations and the need for government authorities to follow a consistent and legally sound process while taking action against businesses.

Court Questions FDA’s Approach

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad expressed strong displeasure with the FDA’s handling of the matter. The judges questioned why the department continued to maintain the suspension after the latest inspection indicated substantial compliance.

The court had previously directed the FDA to reconsider the issue and take a practical approach. However, according to the proceedings, the department continued to rely on concerns surrounding the restaurants’ licensing arrangement.

The FDA’s position was linked partly to the fact that the eateries were being operated by Shirke Infrastructure, while the food licences remained registered in the name of the MCA. The regulatory authority initially treated this arrangement as a reason to continue the suspension.

The judges, however, indicated that the existence of such an arrangement did not automatically prevent the restaurants from operating, particularly when the latest inspection had found them compliant with food safety requirements.

Fresh Inspection Changes the Situation

The dispute followed the FDA’s suspension of the five food licences after inspections raised concerns about hygiene and other operational issues. The MCA challenged the action before the High Court.

During an earlier hearing, the court directed the FDA to conduct another inspection rather than simply relying on its previous findings. The fresh inspection was carried out on Thursday and reportedly found the eateries to be 88 percent compliant with applicable food safety standards.

That finding became central to the subsequent hearing.

The FDA informed the court that it would issue a fresh notice to the MCA. The association would be given an opportunity to explain its contractual arrangement with Shirke Infrastructure before the department takes a new, reasoned decision.

The court accepted this undertaking while allowing the restaurants to resume operations.

Strong Warning to Officials

The court's criticism went beyond the immediate licensing dispute. The bench questioned the manner in which the FDA had approached the matter despite the court’s earlier directions.

The judges warned that continued disregard of the court’s directions could lead to contempt proceedings against the officials concerned. The remarks reflected the court’s concern that administrative authorities should not adopt an inflexible interpretation when the circumstances and inspection findings point in another direction.

The bench also questioned why the FDA had acted with what it described as undue haste without fully examining the applicable legal position.

The court’s intervention effectively means the five eateries can function while the FDA follows the fresh notice-and-hearing process it has undertaken to complete.

Earlier Temporary Arrangement

The dispute had already affected food services at the MCA premises during ongoing sporting activities.

At an earlier hearing, the High Court did not immediately suspend the FDA’s action. Instead, it permitted the MCA to provide tea and coffee through vending machines as a temporary measure. This arrangement was intended to ensure that basic beverage services remained available while the regulatory dispute was being examined.

The court had also acknowledged the FDA commissioner’s efforts to address hygiene violations but stressed that enforcement should be consistent rather than dependent on individual circumstances.

That observation has become an important part of the case because the court’s concern was not about weakening food safety standards. Instead, it was focused on how those standards were being applied and whether administrative decisions were supported by a proper assessment of the facts.

Food Safety Enforcement Remains Central

The episode comes amid heightened scrutiny of food establishments in Maharashtra. The FDA has recently taken action against several eateries over alleged hygiene and food safety violations, making the MCA dispute part of a wider discussion about regulatory enforcement.

Food safety authorities have the responsibility to protect consumers and ensure that restaurants comply with prescribed standards. At the same time, the Bombay High Court’s intervention highlights the importance of procedural fairness when licences are suspended or businesses are prevented from operating.

For the five MCA eateries, the immediate outcome is clear: they have been permitted to reopen following the favourable findings of the latest inspection.

However, the underlying licensing question has not necessarily disappeared. The FDA is expected to issue a fresh notice to the MCA, consider its response regarding the arrangement with Shirke Infrastructure and then issue a reasoned decision.

The case therefore leaves both sides with responsibilities. The eateries must continue meeting food safety requirements, while the FDA must ensure that any further regulatory action is supported by the applicable law, the inspection findings and a fair administrative process.

The High Court’s order serves as a reminder that strict regulation and due process are not competing objectives. Both are essential when public health, business operations and government authority intersect.