Hashir K.R vs The Commissioner Of Food Safety
2023 Latest Caselaw 11519 Ker

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 11519 Ker
Judgement Date : 8 November, 2023

Kerala High Court

Hashir K.R vs The Commissioner Of Food Safety on 8 November, 2023

WA No.1926 of 2023                   1




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.J.DESAI
                                     &
                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
   WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1945
                            WA NO. 1926 OF 2023
    AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 34318/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF
                                   KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

             HASHIR K.R.
             AGED 47 YEARS
             S/O.MUHAMMED RASHEED, KADAMBOTT HOUSE, ERIYAD P.O.,
             KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680666
             BY ADVS.
             BABU S. NAIR
             SMITHA BABU
             P.A.RAJESH
             SHAMSEERA. C.ASHRAF
             PRANAV
             K.P.DHANEESH
             SIDDHARTH KARUN PISHARODY
             NISHA J.KOCHERY


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

      1      THE COMMISSIONER OF FOOD SAFETY
             OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FOOD SAFETY, THYCAUD
             P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
      2      THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF FOOD SAFETY
             KODAMKULANGARA, EROOR SOUTH, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM
             DISTRICT, PIN - 682306

OTHER PRESENT:

             SR.GP.T.K.VIPINDAS
 WA No.1926 of 2023               2



      THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2023,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WA No.1926 of 2023                    3


                             A. J. Desai, C.J.
                                     &
                               V.G. Arun, J.
               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                          W.A.No.1926 of 2023
                 ---------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 8th day of November 2023


                                JUDGMENT

A.J. Desai, C.J.

Admit. With the consent of the learned Advocate appearing for the

respondents, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.

2. The challenge in the present appeal filed under Section 5 of the

Kerala High Court Act, is against the judgment dated 27/10/2023 passed

by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the judgment was

delivered without clarifying the important issue as to whether the

consent of the landlord is required for renewal of registration under the

Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Business)

Regulations 2011.

2. Short facts of the case are as follows;

The appellant/petitioner is running a restaurant in a rented

premise, after obtaining registration under the Regulations. The

registration was granted in the year 2022 for a period of one year. When

the appellant/petitioner filed an application for renewal of registration,

the Authority sought consent of the landlord for renewal of registration.

Hence, the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the same.

3. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition issued the

following directions;

"a). The competent among the respondents is directed to

take up Ext.P10 application and consider the same-either as an

application for renewal of licence or as an application for fresh

one.

b). While considering Ext.P10, either as an application for

renewal, or for a fresh licence, if there are any deficiencies

found with respect to documents or such other requirements,

the petitioner will be notified of the same; and he will be then

heard within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.

c). On the hearing being so done and subject to all other

requirements being complied with the Competent Authority will

issue appropriate orders on Ext.P10, within a period of one

weeks thereafter."

4. Learned Advocate for the appellant would submit that once

registration is granted, there is no need to get the consent of the

landlord for renewal of the registration as there is no such provision in

the Regulations. In support of his submission, learned Counsel relied on

the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sudhakaran v. Corporation

of Trivandrum [(2016) 14 SCC 263]. Counsel therefore would submit

that appropriate orders may be passed in this appeal.

5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submitted that

the impugned judgment warrants no interference.

6. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties,

we hereby allow the appeal in part. In addition of the directions of the

learned Single Judge in the relief portion of the judgment impugned,