C/SCA/4959/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4959 of 2025 ========================================================== SHEIKH MOHAMMAD YUSUF FAKIR MOHAMMAD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: RASHESH A PATEL(8802) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR SAHIL TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR MAULIK NANAVATI, ADVOCATE for NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT Date : 21/04/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Draft amendment is allowed. To be carried out forthwith. 2. This petition is filed challenging the closure notice dated 24.06.2024 (Annexure-A, Page No. 13) under which the premises of the petitioner has been sealed. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rashesh Patel for the petitioner. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is owner and operator of food business namely ‘New Huseni Samosa Center’. The business is registered and Registration Certificate was issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) (Annexure-B, Page No. 14). However, the premises of the petitioner was closed pursuant to notice dated 24.06.2024 referring to the provisions C/SCA/4959/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2025 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Food Safety and Standards Rules and Regulation, 2011 and the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. The allegations are to the effect that the petitioner had illegally slaughtered animal and samosas were made from illegal meat causing damage to the lives of public at large. Learned advocate submitted that the notice is illegal since the provisions referred in the said notice do not apply in the present case. Under the provisions of Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006 and the Regulations thereof, in this kind of offence the penalty of certain amount and under the provisions of the GPMC Act at the most the product can be seized. However, both these Acts do not permit sealing which has been done in the present case. 3.1 Moreover, in respect of the above, petitioner has filed an undertaking before the authority dated 22.10.2024 (Annexure-F, Page No. 36) to the effect that the petitioner does not want to continue with the said business at the given premises and before commencing any other business, he would be first obtain the permission from the respondent – Corporation. Reliance is also placed on the representation filed, (Page No. 38). 4. Learned advocate Mr. Maulik Nanavati for respondent Corporation could not dispute the filing of affidavit (Annexure F, Page No. 36) and the representation of the petitioner (Page No. 38). Learned advocate fairly submitted that if the petitioner is not intending to continue with the business for which notice has been issued and further before intending to C/SCA/4959/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2025 commence any other business, if he is seeking permission/license from respondent – Corporation, no prejudice would be cause to respondent – Corporation. 5. Considering the averment, particularly the affidavit at Annexure-F and the representation at Page No. 38 stating that for any other business than the earlier business, the petitioner would apply and obtain appropriate license, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent – Corporation to open the premises which has been put under seal/closure dated 24.06.2024. 6. With the above direction, present petition is disposed of. (MAUNA M. BHATT,J) SHRIJIT PILLAI Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: PILLAI SHRIJIT P(HC01400), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 21/04/2025 16:53:10