FDA Files FIR Against Reliance, Blinkit and Zomato Hyperpure Officials Over Expired Food

The Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has launched a major food-safety investigation involving Reliance Consumer Products, Reliance Retail, Blinkit and Zomato Hyperpure after authorities alleged that expired, damaged and customer-rejected food products meant for destruction may have been diverted into the resale market. Police registered a first information report (FIR) against 10 people following coordinated inspections across Thane and Pune districts on October 14 and 15, 2026. The FDA seized food stock valued at approximately ₹48.09 lakh during the crackdown.

The investigation centres on the handling of products after they leave warehouses for disposal. According to the FDA’s allegations, some disposal contractors failed to establish that the products had actually been destroyed, while records relating to transportation, stock movement and disposal contained discrepancies. Investigators suspect that products passed through contractors, unlicensed sorting yards, brokers and local suppliers before potentially reaching consumers again. The allegations remain under investigation, and an FIR does not establish guilt. The FDA has also suspended five establishment licences linked to the businesses involved.

Key Takeaways

• FIR registered: Police in Thane have registered a case against 10 people associated with food companies, disposal agencies and local suppliers.
• Companies involved: The case names individuals linked to Reliance Consumer Products, Reliance Retail, Blinkit and Zomato Hyperpure.
• Food stock seized: The FDA reported seizures worth approximately ₹48.09 lakh during inspections in Thane and Pune districts.
• Core allegation: Expired, damaged and returned products intended for destruction may have been diverted for resale.
• Licences suspended: Five establishment licences linked to the companies were suspended, according to reports.
• Legal framework: The FIR invokes relevant provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
• Important caveat: The investigation concerns alleged misconduct and documentation failures; the FIR is not proof of criminal liability.

Why Has the Maharashtra FDA Filed an FIR?

The case began with inspections intended to establish what happened to food products that companies had marked for disposal. Food businesses can generate stock that cannot legally or commercially be sold, including expired items, damaged packaging, leaking products and customer returns that are unsuitable for resale.

Such products must be handled according to applicable food-safety requirements. Businesses and their contractors need to maintain records that show how stock was collected, transported and disposed of. Those records are important because products labelled for destruction should not re-enter the ordinary food supply chain.

During its inspections, the Maharashtra FDA questioned whether companies and their disposal contractors could provide verifiable evidence that affected stock had been destroyed. Officials also examined disposal certificates, bills, warehouse records and information about the movement of goods.

The FDA’s complaint alleges that the disposal process may have been misused, allowing products intended for destruction to pass through intermediaries. Police have registered the case to investigate the alleged diversion and determine the responsibility of the individuals and entities involved.

The distinction is important: inadequate documentation can raise serious regulatory concerns, but the investigation must establish what happened to each category of stock, who handled it and whether any individual knowingly participated in unlawful conduct.

How Expired Food May Have Re-entered the Market

According to the FDA’s allegations, the suspected chain began when retailers and distribution warehouses handed expired, damaged or customer-rejected products to disposal contractors. These contractors were expected to ensure that the goods were destroyed in accordance with applicable requirements.

Investigators suspect that some products were instead moved to unlicensed sorting yards. There, goods that appeared suitable for sale may have been separated from damaged stock and passed to brokers or local suppliers.

The alleged route can be summarised as follows:

1. Warehouse: Expired, damaged or rejected products are identified and marked for disposal.
2. Disposal contractor: The stock is handed over for destruction, with records expected to document the process.
3. Sorting yard or intermediary: Investigators suspect some products were diverted rather than destroyed.
4. Broker or local supplier: Products may have been passed to traders or retailers.
5. Consumer market: The allegedly diverted goods could ultimately have been offered for sale.

This is the suspected pathway described by investigators, not a finding that every product handed to a contractor followed this route.

The case highlights a vulnerability in supply-chain controls: a company may identify unsafe or expired products correctly, yet still face problems if it cannot verify what happens after the stock leaves its premises.

Which Companies and Officials Have Been Named?

The FIR names 10 individuals, including employees and senior officials associated with the businesses under investigation, as well as disposal-agency operators and local suppliers.

Reported names include V. Subramaniam, whole-time director of Reliance Consumer Products; Ashok Kumar Singh of Reliance Consumer Products; Vijay Bhikaji Kharmale, a nominee associated with Reliance Retail; and Nilesh Ramdasrao Deshmukh, a Reliance Retail warehouse manager.

The reported list also includes Arbinder Singh Dhinsa, a director associated with Blinkit Commerce; Deepak Singh of Blinkit Commerce; and Abid Shaikh of Zomato Hyperpure. Other individuals named include Babar Miya Ahmed Siddiqui, associated with disposal firm B K Dispose, and local suppliers.

The inclusion of an individual in an FIR does not mean that person has been convicted or that every allegation against them has been proven. The investigation will need to establish each person’s role, the relevant records and whether the evidence supports criminal charges.

Reliance and Blinkit did not immediately respond to Reuters’ requests for comment, according to the news agency’s October 17 report. Any subsequent company responses or findings by investigators should be considered as the case develops.

How Much Food Stock Was Seized?

The crackdown resulted in reported seizures valued at approximately ₹48.09 lakh across multiple locations. The amount represents stock seized during the operation, rather than a final estimate of all products potentially connected to the investigation.

Some reports have also cited a substantially larger figure of around ₹33.71 crore for stock or property described in the broader investigation records. These figures refer to different reported scopes and should not be treated as interchangeable. The ₹48.09 lakh figure is the seizure total widely cited in reports of the FIR; the larger amount requires careful attribution to the specific investigative record in which it appears.

The inspections included warehouses, local retail outlets and disposal-related premises. Officials reported finding expired or damaged products and examining whether the records supported the claimed disposal of stock.

The investigation is expected to focus on tracing the goods, identifying the parties that handled them and establishing whether products intended for destruction reached retail channels.

Why Were Five Establishment Licences Suspended?

The FDA suspended five food-safety licences linked to establishments associated with Reliance Consumer Products, Reliance Retail, Blinkit and Zomato Hyperpure. Two unlicensed establishments were also reportedly directed to shut down.

A licence suspension is a regulatory action affecting an establishment’s ability to operate under the relevant food-safety permissions. It is separate from a criminal conviction and does not, by itself, establish the guilt of a company’s leadership or every employee.

The suspensions indicate that the FDA considered the findings serious enough to take immediate regulatory measures while the investigation continued. They also place pressure on the affected businesses to demonstrate that their inventory, disposal and recordkeeping systems comply with food-safety requirements.

The exact operational impact depends on the premises affected, the scope of the suspension and any subsequent orders or appeals. It should not be assumed that every outlet or warehouse operated by the companies has been shut down.

What the Case Means for Quick-Commerce and Retail Companies

The investigation raises questions for companies that handle large volumes of packaged food across warehouses, dark stores, retail outlets and supplier networks.

Quick-commerce businesses depend on fast inventory turnover and accurate stock tracking. Products have to be checked for expiry dates, damaged packaging, returns and other conditions that may make them unsuitable for sale. When items are removed from sale, the process must continue through the final disposal stage.

A disposal contractor creates an additional link in the chain. If the contractor cannot be verified, if a facility operates without the required permissions or if records do not match the physical stock, the company may struggle to demonstrate that its procedures worked as intended.

The case could prompt retailers and delivery platforms to review several controls:

• Contractor verification: Confirming that disposal agencies and their facilities are authorised and traceable.
• Digital inventory records: Maintaining reliable records of products removed from sale, including quantities, batch details and expiry dates.
• Proof of destruction: Collecting verifiable evidence that products were destroyed or handled through an approved process.
• Independent audits: Checking whether contractor records match warehouse stock movements.
• Supplier monitoring: Investigating unexplained discrepancies between products sent for disposal and goods found elsewhere.

These are general risk-control measures relevant to the alleged failures under investigation, not a claim that every company named lacked every control.

For retailers, the commercial risk extends beyond regulatory penalties. Consumer trust depends on confidence that products sold through familiar brands and digital platforms meet basic safety requirements.

Why Expired Food Is a Consumer Safety Concern

Expiry and use-by information helps consumers understand when a product may no longer be suitable for consumption under the manufacturer’s stated conditions. The precise significance of a date depends on the product and its labelling, storage requirements and applicable rules.

Expired products are not all equally hazardous, but selling food that is unsafe, spoiled or improperly stored can expose consumers to health risks. Damaged or leaking packaging may also compromise product integrity.

The concern in this investigation is particularly serious because the products were allegedly intended for destruction. If a product is removed from sale because it is expired, damaged or rejected, it should not simply re-enter the market through another seller without lawful and appropriate handling.

Consumers can check package integrity, expiry or best-before information, manufacturer details and storage conditions when buying packaged food. They should avoid products with visibly damaged packaging or suspicious labelling and report concerns to the relevant food-safety authority.

These precautions do not transfer responsibility away from businesses. Food companies, distributors and retailers remain responsible for meeting the legal requirements that apply to the products they handle and sell.

The Bigger Picture

The Maharashtra FDA investigation highlights the importance of traceability beyond the warehouse. Identifying expired or damaged food is only the first step; businesses must also be able to demonstrate that products marked for destruction are handled through a lawful, verifiable process. The allegations involving disposal contractors and intermediaries raise questions about how effectively that process can be audited across complex supply chains.

For the retail and quick-commerce sectors, the case is a reminder that consumer trust depends on the entire journey of a product, including what happens when it is removed from sale. The final outcome will depend on evidence gathered by investigators, the responses of the named individuals and companies, and any subsequent legal or regulatory findings. Until then, the allegations must be distinguished from established wrongdoing.

Looking Ahead

The immediate focus will be on tracing the stock, reviewing disposal documentation and determining whether expired or damaged products were diverted for resale. The FDA’s licence suspensions and the FIR create both regulatory and legal exposure for the establishments and individuals involved, but further findings will be needed to establish the precise responsibility of each party. Company responses, police investigation updates and any court proceedings will be important to follow.

The case may also lead retailers and quick-commerce operators to tighten controls over disposal contractors, improve digital tracking and require stronger evidence that products marked for destruction have been handled correctly. For consumers, the central issue is confidence that food sold through established retail and delivery channels has passed appropriate safety checks. The long-term significance will depend on whether the investigation produces enforceable findings and stronger safeguards against the diversion of unsafe products.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Why did the Maharashtra FDA file an FIR against Reliance, Blinkit and Zomato Hyperpure officials?

The FIR followed allegations that expired, damaged and customer-rejected food products meant for destruction may have been diverted through disposal contractors and intermediaries for resale. Investigators also questioned the adequacy of disposal records.

2. How much expired food stock did the FDA seize?

Reports cite a total seizure of approximately ₹48.09 lakh during the inspections across Thane and Pune districts. A larger amount has appeared in some reporting about the broader investigation, but it refers to a different reported scope and should not be confused with the seizure total.

3. How many people have been named in the FIR?

The FIR names 10 people, including individuals associated with Reliance Consumer Products, Reliance Retail, Blinkit, Zomato Hyperpure, disposal agencies and local suppliers.

4. Were the companies’ licences suspended?

Yes. Reports say the FDA suspended five establishment licences linked to the businesses involved. Two unlicensed establishments were also reportedly directed to shut down.

5. Does the FIR mean the named executives are guilty?

No. An FIR records allegations and initiates a criminal investigation. Responsibility and guilt must be established through the applicable legal process.

6. What should consumers know about the case?

The investigation concerns allegations that products intended for destruction may have re-entered the market. Consumers should check expiry information and packaging integrity, while relying on food-safety authorities for verified updates about the case.