Food Safety Officer Cannot Seize Machinery: P&H High Court Quashes Action Taken Without Statutory Authority Under FSS Act
Case Name: M/s Singla Traders v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 16.04.2026
Citation: CWP-36380-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Held: The High Court held that a Food Safety Officer has no authority under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 to seize plant and machinery, and such action without statutory backing is illegal and liable to be set aside.
Summary: The petitioner challenged the seizure of its food processing machinery by the authorities, contending that such action was beyond the powers conferred under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
The machinery was seized pursuant to directions issued during a District Grievance Redressal Committee meeting, based on allegations of manufacturing substandard food products. The State justified the action on grounds of public safety and repeated violations by the petitioner.
The High Court examined the statutory scheme under Sections 33, 34, 38, 41, and 42 of the 2006 Act and held that the Act specifically delineates powers of authorities. While Food Safety Officers are empowered to draw samples, inspect premises, seize food articles, and initiate prosecution, they are not authorized to seize plant and machinery.
The Court emphasized that provisions restricting the right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) must be strictly construed. It noted that seizure of machinery amounts to a serious interference with business rights and can only be undertaken by a competent authority following due procedure, such as by a Court under Section 33 or by a Designated Officer under Section 34 in specified circumstances.
It was further observed that even the Food Safety Officer had acknowledged lack of power to seal or seize machinery, and the impugned action was taken merely on administrative directions without statutory compliance.
Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned notice/order dated 14.11.2025 whereby the machinery was seized. It clarified that the judgment does not affect ongoing proceedings regarding cancellation of licence or prosecution under the Act.