Judgment 1. The petitioner was selected by the Dean of the Madras Medical College in December 2008, to run a Canteen for the Madras Medical College Doctors, Students and Staff. The petitioner was obliged to run the Canteen with their own investment on a trial basis for sometime, to test the quality and consumer satisfaction. 2. After the petitioner ran the Canteen for three months successfully, the Dean of the Madras Medical College issued an order of allotment dated 31.3.2009, permitting the petitioner to run the Canteen on a monthly rent of Rs.20,000/-. Though the order of allotment required the petitioner to enter into an agreement on a stamp paper, the same did not materialise. Consequently, the petitioner could not pay the rent, as it was not accepted by the respondent without a formal agreement. 3. Therefore, after giving a representation on 11.11.2010, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.16068 of 2012 seeking the issue of a writ of Mandamus to direct the Dean to pass orders on merits, on their representation. The said writ petition was admitted on 26.6.2012. 4. After coming to know of the writ petition, the Director of Medical Education issued a communication on 03.10.2012 directing the Dean as well as the petitioner to enter into a lease agreement. Despite the said direction, nothing happened. 5. However, in March 2014, the petitioner was directed to have an extension counter for his Canteen, at the new premises of the College at the Old Jail Campus. But, within two months, the petitioner was informed that the students wanted to run the Hostel Canteen by themselves and that therefore, the petitioner should vacate the premises. However, it was informed that the petitioner could shift his entire Canteen to the new College premises at the old Jail premises and start functioning there, until further orders. 6. As against the communication dated 21.5.2014, by which the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises and to shift the entire Canteen to the new College premises, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 15226 of 2014. 6. As against the communication dated 21.5.2014, by which the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises and to shift the entire Canteen to the new College premises, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 15226 of 2014. It appears that when the said writ petition came up for hearing, this Court passed an order directing the respondents to produce the file and also give a report as to why public auction was not conducted for running the Canteen and also as to why the rent, electricity charges and water charges were not collected for the past two years. 7. Thereafter, the Dean passed an order dated 10.6.2014 calling upon the petitioner to vacate the Canteen premises within 48 hours, on or before 12.6.2014. I do not know what happened to the said letter. It was not even challenged by the petitioner. 8. But, it appears that on 11.10.2014, the first respondent, namely the Food Safety Officer inspected the Canteen and gave an inspection note directing the petitioner to carry out certain improvements. Accordingly, the petitioner claims to have closed down the Canteen and spent Rs.3.00 Lakhs to carry out the improvements. After doing so, the petitioner sent a letter on 14.10.2014, requesting the first respondent to make an inspection and allow him to run the Canteen. But, no inspection was carried out. Therefore, on 20.10.2014, the petitioner came up with the first writ petition W.P.No.27978 of 2014 seeking the issue of a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents from vacating the petitioner from the Canteen run by them. On the same day, namely, 20.10.2014, while ordering notice of motion, I passed an interim order directing the respondents not to evict the petitioner from running the Canteen. 9. Pursuant to the aforesaid interim order, the petitioner appears to have opened the Canteen and started running the same. But, on 29.10.2014, the Food Safety Officer sealed the Canteen, on the ground that there was an inspection conducted on 28.10.2014 and that during inspection, it was found that the petitioner had not rectified five defects earlier pointed out. Aggrieved by the sudden sealing of the Canteen, the petitioner has come up with the second writ petition W.P.No.28557 of 2014. When the second writ petition came up for orders as to admission on 03.11.2014, the learned Additional Government Pleader took notice and requested time to make submissions. Aggrieved by the sudden sealing of the Canteen, the petitioner has come up with the second writ petition W.P.No.28557 of 2014. When the second writ petition came up for orders as to admission on 03.11.2014, the learned Additional Government Pleader took notice and requested time to make submissions. But, I directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to run Canteen and also file a counter. 10. Thereafter, the respondents filed counter affidavits in both the writ petitions and I heard Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.H. Arvind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. P. Sanjay Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 11. From the facts pleaded on both sides, the picture that emerges is as follows: (a) The petitioner was chosen to run a Canteen for the Doctors, Students and Staff, way back in December 2008, in a manner not known to law. The license to run a Canteen inside the premises of a Government College, which is attached to a huge hospital, is a public largesse. Unfortunately, it had been granted to the petitioner, without following the process of notification, invitation to offer etc., as prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998. Therefore, the manner in which the petitioner gained the public largesse, is questionable. (b) After allowing the petitioner to make investment to establish and run a Canteen in December 2008, the respondents neither fixed the rent on a scientific basis, nor entered into any agreement, nor finalised the terms and conditions of such allotment. I do not know how for the past four years, a person was allowed to run a Canteen without any license and without any agreement. (c) But, the fact remains that the petitioner cannot also be termed as an trespasser. He became a permissive occupier, of course, through a process unknown to law. (d) But, the same would not entitle the respondents to throw out the petitioner out, in the same manner as they inducted him. Once a person was allowed to occupy a public premises and also allowed to invest money and run a Canteen for about four years, he is entitled to develop a legitimate expectation, if not for the grant of a proper lease, but at least for an eviction by due process of law. Once a person was allowed to occupy a public premises and also allowed to invest money and run a Canteen for about four years, he is entitled to develop a legitimate expectation, if not for the grant of a proper lease, but at least for an eviction by due process of law. The law is well settled that even encroachers are entitled to an opportunity before they are evicted, as per the decision of the full bench of this court. 12. Admittedly, the respondents have not taken any steps to evict the petitioner by due process of law. Instead of serving a notice on the petitioner and calling upon them to vacate within a reasonable time, the Dean of the Medical College appears to have adopted a shortcut. The Food Safety Officer appears to have inspected the premises on 11.10.2014 and directed the petitioner to carry out certain improvements. The improvements directed to be carried out, as per the report of the first respondent dated 11.10.2014, are as follows: (i) the petitioner should allot a separate room for the workers; (ii) purified and safe drinking water to be provided; (iii) the kitchen has to be modernised; (iv) the place for washing utensils should be repaired, so that there is no stagnation of waste water and the waste water is drained out; (v) the articles made ready for cooking, should be kept in a hygienic manner; (vi) measures to prevent the movement of stray dogs are to be taken; (vii) store room should be kept separately; (viii) proper chimney should be installed in the kitchen; (ix) new air conditioners to be fixed; and (x) the boiler should be shifted to some other place or at least the smoke should be prevented from spreading. 13. It appears that in good faith, the petitioner carried out those repairs, by spending money and also closing down the Canteen for few days. But, the first respondent did not carry out any inspection, despite a letter submitted by the petitioner on 20.10.2014. This is why the petitioner was forced to approach this Court on 20.10.2014. 14. After this Court passed an interim order on 20.10.2014, the Food Safety Officer carried out an inspection on 28.10.2014 and sealed the premises on 29.10.2014. But, the first respondent did not carry out any inspection, despite a letter submitted by the petitioner on 20.10.2014. This is why the petitioner was forced to approach this Court on 20.10.2014. 14. After this Court passed an interim order on 20.10.2014, the Food Safety Officer carried out an inspection on 28.10.2014 and sealed the premises on 29.10.2014. Interestingly, the order dated 29.10.2014 passed by the first respondent sealing the premises, proceeds on the basis that the following defects were found to continue, when the Canteen was inspected on 28.10.2014: (i) separate room not allotted for workers; (ii) the height of the chimney was not increased to 15' and consequently, smoke was coming out directly, causing pollution; (iii) the boiler was not shifted; (iv) washroom was not sufficient; and (v) the drain for sewage was not properly made. 15. In addition to the above five reasons, the order of the Food Safety Officer dated 29.10.2014 also stated that on the basis of the complaints given by the students that unsafe and unhygienic food was being sold in the Canteen, samples had been taken and sent to the Laboratory for analysis and that therefore, the question of permitting the petitioner to continue to run the Canteen would be taken up for consideration after the report of the analysis came. 16. I do not know whether the Food Safety Officer was competent to seal a Canteen, on the basis of the above defects. The role assigned to the Food Safety Officer under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the Regulations framed thereunder, is to take samples of the food items, send them for analysis, receive a report and take action in accordance with law. I do not know whether the Food Safety Officer can act like a Health Inspector of the Municipal Corporation or an Environmental Engineer of the Pollution Control Board, directing the owner of a Canteen to give separate room for employees, increase the height of the chimney so that there is no pollution, etc. 17. Let me assume for a minute that the Food Safety Officer is entitled to take upon himself the task of hygiene, cleanliness of the environment, pollution control etc., apart from ensuring the quality of the food. Even then, what had happened in this case is quite perplexing. 17. Let me assume for a minute that the Food Safety Officer is entitled to take upon himself the task of hygiene, cleanliness of the environment, pollution control etc., apart from ensuring the quality of the food. Even then, what had happened in this case is quite perplexing. The Food Safety Officer claims to have taken the samples of (i) water, (ii) iodised crystal salt, (iii) turmeric powder, and (iv) used cooking oil, from the Canteen of the petitioner and sent them for analysis to the Food Analysis Laboratory, King Institute. The report of the analysis dated 07.11.2014 shows that the iodine content of the iodised crystal salt taken from the Canteen of the petitioner was less than what is prescribed under the FSS (Food Product Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011. Insofar as turmeric powder is concerned, the report says that the sample complied to the standards prescribed under the Regulations. But, the used cooking oil was declared to be unsafe food by the King Institute. Insofar as water is concerned, it is claimed by the Food Safety Officer that water contained coliform bacteria and that therefore, it was considered to be unsafe. 18. Insofar as cooking oil is concerned, it is highly perplexing as to why the Food Safety Officer took samples of used cooking oil. To find out whether the food articles are prepared safely for human consumption, he must have taken the oil that was intended to be used for cooking. If the Food Safety Officer takes the oil that had already been used for cooking, it will reveal only the same result that it has now revealed. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the power assumed by the Food Safety Officer to prescribe standards not only for the food items prepared by the petitioner, but also for the upkeep of the Canteen and its environment and the sample taken by him of used cooking oil rather than unused cooking oil, is nothing but a contamination of the power actually conferred upon him. Therefore, it is unsafe to rely upon his report, which is a product of an adulterated exercise of power. 19. The learned Additional Advocate General produced the files relating to the case. The papers contained in the file disclosed some more information relevant for taking a decision. Therefore, it is unsafe to rely upon his report, which is a product of an adulterated exercise of power. 19. The learned Additional Advocate General produced the files relating to the case. The papers contained in the file disclosed some more information relevant for taking a decision. It appears that originally, the Canteen was run by the Madras Medical Students Co-operative Society. It ran into heavy loss, forcing its closure. The employees were terminated and they have gone to Court. Therefore, the students Council decided to outsource the facility and the petitioner actually went to their rescue by even paying Rs.3,90,000/- to the Co-operative Society to take over the Canteen. These facts are borne out by a letter bearing Ref.No.16311/P&D/10 dated 12.11.2010 sent by the Dean of the College to the Director of Medical Education. As a matter of fact, apart from the financial crisis into which the Co-operative Society got plunged, it was alleged in various communications that the food prepared by the Co-operative Society was unsafe for consumption. Therefore, the Director of Medical Education seems to have advised the Dean of the College by a communication dated 03.10.2012 to enter into a proper lease agreement with the petitioner. It is in the above background of things that the case of the petitioner and the stand taken by the respondents have to be decided. 20. The file produced by the Food Safety Officer discloses some more shocking facts. The Food Safety Officer had sent 500ml of used cooking oil from a 20 litre fry pan and sent it on 29.10.2014 to the Food Analyst. He had also sent samples of processed water, iodised salt and turmeric powder. The water sent for analysis was actually intended for preparation of food, meaning thereby that it was not for direct human consumption. I do not know, whether the drinking water supplied by the Municipal Corporation of Chennai to all of us would satisfy the standards applied by the Food Analyst to the water, in terms of Regulation 2.10.8 of the FSS (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulation 2011. Similarly, the iodised salt, even as per the report, was in a pre-packed condition bought from a reputed company. I do not know how the petitioner was made responsible for lesser iodine content. Similarly, the iodised salt, even as per the report, was in a pre-packed condition bought from a reputed company. I do not know how the petitioner was made responsible for lesser iodine content. Insofar as cooking oil is concerned, I have already indicated that instead of taking oil intended to be used for cooking, the Food Safety Officer had taken oil which was already used for cooking. I am also unable to understand as to why the Food Safety Officer did not take a food item already prepared by the petitioner for testing, but took turmeric powder, water, used cooking oil and packed salt, for testing. 21. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the respondents have taken action against the petitioner, for extraneous reasons, which I am unable to decipher. Since arbitrary exercise of power strikes at the very root of fairness, guaranteed under Article 14, I am unable to sustain the action taken by the respondents. The manner in which the Food Safety Officer drew samples, also does not appear to be in accordance with law. A procedure is prescribed by the Food Safety and Standards Act for drawing samples and sending them for analysis. This has also not been followed. 22. After requesting the petitioner to run the Canteen, at a time when the Co-operative Canteen ran into a financial as well as labour crisis, it is not fair on the part of the respondents to ask the petitioner to shut down even without a breathing time and without an opportunity of hearing. 23. Therefore, both the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents shall allow the petitioner to continue to run the Canteen. It is open to the Food Safety Officer to draw samples of cooked items in a manner prescribed by law and send them for analysis and take appropriate action. It is also open to the Dean of the Medical College to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, for the eviction of the petitioner or for the execution of a proper lease agreement. If the respondent wishes to throw out the petitioner, they shall first issue a notification for putting up a right to run a Canteen for auction, so that the petitioner can also participate in such auction. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 in both the writ petitions are closed.