Calcultta High Court has ordered a temporary stay on Food Safety and Standards Authority of India‘s (FSSAI) move to suspend the food business licence of Kolkata-based Switz Foods.

On August 1, 2026, the food regulator had announced the action through a post on social media. It said inspectors found several non-compliances that could affect food safety and increase the risk of contamination. “Food was being manufactured, packed and stored in unhygienic conditions, posing a high risk of contamination and compromising food safety,” FSSAI said.

However, on 30 July, 2026 Calcutta High Court had already passed an interim order noting that FSSAI suspension order was passed without providing any proper opportunity for a hearing, and prior to lapsing of the time period of 15 days granted for rectification.

The Court observed, “the respondent authorities (FSSAI) without giving any proper opportunity of hearing the petitioner (Switz Foods) have passed the impugned order. This Court also finds that the inspection was carried out from July 14, 2026 to July 28, 2026 and 15 days are going to be completed on August 12, 2026 but before the 15 days are completed, the respondents have passed the impugned order.”

Court stayed the ban until August 26, 2026, saying, Switz Foods has “made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience and inconvenience is in favour of the petitioner.”

Why did FSSAI suspend Switz Foods’ licence?

According to the regulator, the inspection found multiple hygiene and maintenance issues across the food manufacturing facility. FSSAI said these violations posed a serious risk to food safety and public health.

The inspection report listed major non-conformities that led to the suspension:

ALSO READ
  1. Food was prepared in unhygienic conditions: Food was manufactured, packed and stored in unhygienic conditions, creating a high risk of contamination and compromising food safety.
  2. Poor cleaning and sanitation: Inspectors found unsatisfactory cleaning and sanitation across the premises. Unhygienic conditions were seen in the crate washing area, the non-vegetarian food reception area and the washing area near the carrot cutting machine.
  3. Poor maintenance of equipment: Equipment, machinery, HDPE crates, trays, trolleys, moulds and heated kettles were not cleaned or maintained properly. Inspectors also found water leaking from AC pipelines over the product storage area. The crate washing equipment was also non-functional.
  4. Rust and missing insect-proof protection: Exhaust fans did not have insect-proof screens. Rust and corrosion were found on food processing equipment, ventilation systems and food-contact utensils.
  5. Inadequate infrastructure: The premises had inadequate lighting, ventilation and storage facilities for food materials, chemicals and personnel belongings.
  6. Pest infestation and structural damage: Inspectors observed significant pest infestation, including flies, mosquitoes, fruit flies and cobwebs. The facility also had flaking paint, damp walls, broken floor tiles, greasy corners and oil residue accumulation across the premises.
  7. Improper handling of food products: Semi-finished and intermediate food products were not properly covered. Dustbins were placed next to food handling areas, while drainage systems were not fitted with protective traps or screens.
  8. Poor segregation practices: The facility failed to maintain proper segregation between semi-finished and finished products, as well as between vegetarian and non-vegetarian food items, increasing the risk of cross-contamination.
  9. Lack of traceability and improper storage: Raw materials and semi-finished products lacked date markings and use-by details. Finished products were stored on unclean trays without protective liners, and scrap equipment was kept inside the cold storage area.
  10. Unsafe food handling: Inspectors found cut chicken being thawed at ambient temperature instead of under controlled conditions. They also observed inadequate temperature control and found a finished chicken sandwich without the mandatory labelling.

Editor’s note: An earlier version of the story omitted the fact that the Calcutta High Court had already granted an interim stay on the FSSAI action; this has been corrected. The logo used in the earlier report was also incorrect and has been updated.