Allahabad High Court
M/S Tayyara Foods Thru. Its Propreitor ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And ... on 6 June, 2025
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34964-DB
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5623 of 2025
Petitioner :- M/S Tayyara Foods Thru. Its Propreitor Syed Faisal Rizvi And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Safety And Drug Administration Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Waris Farooqui
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.
1. Heard.
2. Instruction filed today is taken on record.
3. Petitioner alleges interference by the police authorities in not allowing the petitioner to conduct his business, despite the fact that he has a license issued from the competent authority. Therefore, he has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to permit/allow the petitioners to operate and run their business of meat and meat products as per their license No. 12725998000203 issued by Government of India under Food Safety and Standard Authority of India, which is valid up till 16.05.2026, in the interest of justice. (contained as Annexure No. 1).
(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of further mandamus restraining the respondent from creating any hindrance/obstruction in functioning of business/shop of meat and meat product of petitioners as per license No. 12725998000203 issued by Government of India under Food Safety and Standard Authority of India, in the interest of justice."
4. Reliance has been placed on a judgment dated 22.10.2024 passed in Writ-C No. 7355 of 2024, wherein, as claimed, similar issue was involved. The said judgment reads as under:
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. Petitioners have a valid license under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The only stand of the opposite party nos.1 to 3 in the counter affidavit filed on their behalf is that they have not issued the license, it is the Central Authority under the Central Act who has issued the license. However, their counter affidavit is absolutely silent with regard to the Circular of the Commissioner, Food Safety and Drug Administration U.P., Sector C, Aliganj, Lucknow who is an Officer of the State Government dated 01.01.2021. In any case, once there is a valid license operating, then the police authorities have no business to create any hindrance to the functioning of the shop based on such license unless there is any provision under which they could validly interfere for which they will have to give reasons in writing or at least in the counter affidavit, they should have filed some documents.
3. In the counter affidavit, the opposite parties nos. 4 and 5, the police authorities all that have been said is that there is a Circular of the Commissioner, Food Safety and Drugs Administration U.P. dated 01.01.2021 which requires that the 'No Objection Certificate' should be taken by the concerned applicant not directly from the local police station but the process should be initiated through the Superintendent of Police of the District.
4. This Circular is of the Commissioner, Food Safety and Drug Administration, U.P. who has filed counter affidavit but has said nothing about its application or implementation. In any case, if the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur, or for that matter, the local police is of the opinion that the license has not been validly granted, then it should send its report to the concerned Licensing Authority through proper channel for initiating process for suspension for cancellation of license if it is so permissible and thereafter, if the license is suspended or cancelled, then the petitioner can be stopped from functioning but unless this procedure prescribed in law is followed, we fail to understand as to how the police authorities can interfere with the running with the business of the petitioner. Counter affidavit does not mention any reason as regard the location of the shop or any other illegality being committed by the petitioner which may persuade us not to interfere in the matte.
5. We accordingly, allow this petition with a direction/observation that opposite party nos. 4 and 5 shall not interfere with the functioning/operation of the petitioner's business in pursuance to the license No.12724998000071 which is said to be valid up to 28.05.2025, if it is still in operation, i.e. it has not been suspended or cancelled by the Licensing Authority subject however, to the liberty granted to the opposite party nos. 4 and 5 as mentioned hereinabove."
5. We had asked the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions in the matter, who says that though license is still operative but the NOC granted prior to issuance of license was not proper in view of the circular of the Commissioner, Food Safety and Drug Administration, dated 01.01.2021.
6. We have already dealt with the issue in our judgment dated 22.10.2024 and as nothing else has been said in the instructions, which is taken on record,this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment dated 22.10.2024, meaning thereby the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the observation of the directions contained in with the corresponding obligation upon the respondents.
Order Date :- 6.6.2025
K.Tiwari
(Praveen Kumar Giri, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.)
