Hashir K.R. vs Commissioner Of Food Safety

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submitted that the impugned judgment warrants no interference.

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, the following shall be added as direction No.'d' ;

“d. While considering the application (Annexure -A), the respondent-Authority shall not ask for No Objection Certificate from the landlord.”