Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe has clarified the rationale behind his department's inspection of canteens within the Bombay High Court premises. Mundhe stated that the action was a direct response to questions raised during a court hearing regarding whether food safety enforcement was being applied uniformly to government and semi-government entities, or solely to private establishments.
FDA Action Followed Court Inquiry
During a conversation at Business Today's India @ 100 event, Mundhe recounted how the inspection came about. He explained that while he was not personally present during a specific court hearing, his legal team and FDA officers were. Following the hearing, the government leader representing the state briefed Mundhe about the court's queries.
“She briefed me that during the hearing, the questions were raised whether you are taking action against only private or you are taking action against the establishment of government and semi-government,” Mundhe stated. He affirmed that the FDA possessed data demonstrating its enforcement actions across various types of establishments.
The discussion in court reportedly included an inquiry about whether the Mantralaya canteen had been inspected, which Mundhe confirmed it had. The subsequent question was whether the Bombay High Court canteen had also undergone inspection. Mundhe recalled admitting, “We have not done that.” According to Mundhe, the court then suggested that the High Court canteen should also be visited, prompting his team to conduct the inspection the very next day.
Unlicensed Operations Discovered
The inspections at the Bombay High Court revealed significant compliance issues. Mundhe reported that three canteens were operating on the premises. Crucially, he noted, “In the High Court, there were two canteens which were running without a licence.”
This finding, Mundhe highlighted, served as a clear example of the FDA's commitment to extending food safety checks beyond private businesses to encompass government and semi-government premises. His explanation underscored his position that food safety regulations must be applied consistently, irrespective of an establishment's ownership or affiliation.
The Commissioner also addressed perceptions about his enforcement style, including remarks questioning whether his approach involved excessive force. Mundhe responded concisely, stating, “I challenge myself, nobody else,” emphasizing his personal commitment to his work rather than external pressures.
Mundhe concluded that the High Court canteen inspection was not a pre-planned targeted action against the judiciary but a necessary response to inquiries about the equitable scope of FDA inspections.