FSSAI has suspended the licences of two food businesses in South 24 Parganas after inspectors found serious hygiene failures, missing safety records and, at one facility, a water-test document that appeared digitally altered.
The action covers M/s Sanecure Water Project and M/s Kailash Formulation. FSSAI said both licences were suspended in the interest of public health and would remain so until further orders.
The enforcement drive was announced on September 6.
What makes the case significant is the nature of the findings. At Sanecure Water Project, the issues went beyond untidy premises and included pest infestation, rusting equipment and missing documents that are supposed to show whether water, raw materials and chemicals were properly tested.
Proposal for Conducting Cyber Crisis Drill, Tabletop Exercise (TTEx) & CCMP Readiness Exercise
Inspectors Found Pest Infestation and Corroded Equipment
At Sanecure Water Project, officials found poor hygiene and sanitation along with inadequate pest-proofing.
The inspection also recorded significant pest infestation and rust or corrosion on equipment. Personal hygiene facilities, including hand-washing arrangements and washrooms for workers, were found inadequate.
Preventive maintenance records were also missing.
For a facility handling drinking water, these are not minor housekeeping issues. Equipment that is poorly maintained can become difficult to clean properly, while pest entry can create additional contamination risks.
The site is listed in West Bengal pollution-control records as a mineralised-water unit in South 24 Parganas.
Missing Test Records Raised a Bigger Compliance Question
FSSAI also found that several documents required for routine compliance were unavailable.
These reportedly included a pest-control agreement, medical examination and inoculation records of food handlers, control-sample records, customer-complaint records and corrective and preventive action documentation.
More importantly, potable-water testing reports and certificates of analysis for raw materials and chemicals were not available. Approved-vendor records were also missing.
Inspectors further noted that a copy of a laboratory record relating to water testing appeared to have been digitally edited or altered.
That is a much more serious red flag than simply failing to file paperwork.
A laboratory test record is supposed to show whether a product or input passed prescribed safety checks. If such a record has been altered, authorities have to determine whether the underlying test was genuine, whether results were changed, and who was responsible.
FSSAI has not publicly announced a separate criminal case over that document.
What Do COA, Control Samples and CAPA Mean?
A Certificate of Analysis, or COA, is a laboratory document showing whether a raw material, chemical or finished product meets specified quality and safety parameters.
A control sample is a retained sample from a production batch. If a complaint later emerges, that sample can be tested to see whether the batch itself had a problem.
CAPA stands for Corrective and Preventive Action.
It is a record of what went wrong, how the business fixed it and what steps were taken to stop it from happening again.
These records matter because food safety cannot depend only on what inspectors happen to see on one visit.
Under FSSAI’s licensing framework, food businesses are required to follow sanitary and hygienic practices under Schedule 4 of the Food Safety and Standards regulations.
The records provide a trail showing whether those safeguards were actually being followed over time.
Second Firm Also Failed Basic Hygiene and Documentation Checks
The second company, Kailash Formulation, was also found to have poor cleaning, hygiene and sanitation.
Inspectors said proper hand-washing, changing and hygiene facilities were lacking. Mandatory medical examination, inoculation and personal hygiene records for food handlers were also unavailable.
The inspection additionally found missing laboratory reports, calibration records, certificates of analysis and product control-sample records.
FSSAI also noted compliance gaps involving packaging materials and raw materials. Documents such as food-grade certificates and migration reports for PET bottles and caps were reportedly not available.
The regulator consequently suspended the licence for all food business activities.
Why Suspension Matters
A suspension is different from cancellation.
It means the business cannot continue the activities covered by the licence while the suspension remains in force.
The competent authority can later decide whether the licence should be restored after compliance, remain suspended, or face further action depending on the findings and response from the business.
FSSAI’s broader licensing rules place responsibility on the food business operator to maintain hygienic conditions and required safety controls.
The South 24 Parganas action shows why record-keeping is treated as part of food safety rather than administrative paperwork.
Inspectors can see a rusted machine immediately.
What they cannot see without records is whether water was properly tested last week, whether chemicals came from approved suppliers, whether workers were medically cleared or whether earlier safety failures were corrected.
That makes documentation part of the safety system itself.
What this means for you: When buying packaged water or other food products, check the FSSAI licence number and avoid products with damaged seals, unusual taste, odour or visible contamination. Consumers can also report suspected food-safety violations through FSSAI’s Food Safety Connect system or local food-safety authorities.
The420 Insight: The most concerning finding here is not the rust or poor cleanliness. It is the apparent weakness in the compliance trail. When water-testing reports, supplier records and control samples are missing, regulators lose the ability to verify whether safety checks were consistently performed. The allegedly altered laboratory record makes that gap even more important. The next step should be to establish whether this was poor record management or whether documents were deliberately changed to mask failed compliance.
https://www.linkedin.com/company/policetechnology/
