FSSAI's Presence In Delhi Cannot Confer Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against Maharashtra FDA's Show Cause Notice To VIMAL Endorsers
The Bench noted that the location of apex regulatory bodies or corporate office in Delhi cannot confer territorial jurisdiction over independent enforcement action initiated by state authorities.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by P B Agro LLP, the Master Licensee of the VIMAL brand, challenging a show cause notice issued by the Food and Drug Administration, Mumbai, to three brand ambassadors of its cardamom product, holding that the petition was not maintainable before it for want of territorial jurisdiction.
Expanding on this, the Court held that the mere presence of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in Delhi could not clothe it with jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to an action independently initiated by a State authority in Maharashtra, against persons resident in Mumbai, in relation to alleged activities confined to that State, and further held that Maharashtra courts were the appropriate forum under the doctrine of forum conveniens.
A Single-Judge Bench comprising Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “…The mere fact that FSSAI is the apex body under the enactment, or that it is situated in Delhi, cannot alter the source or character of the show cause notice impugned in the present petition”.
“…The petitioner has not pointed out any independent order, direction or decision of the Ministry or FSSAI which is under challenge in the present petition. In the considered opinion of this Court, the mere impleadment of the Ministry or FSSAI, without any specific relief being sought against them and without any impugned action attributable to them, cannot confer territorial jurisdiction upon this Court, which otherwise does not exist”, it noted further.
Senior Advocates Dayan Krishnan and Mohit Mathur appeared for the petitioner and Chetan Sharma, ASG, Rukhmini Bobde, CGSC appeared for the respondent.
P B Agro LLP entered into formal endorsement agreements with prominent actors to promote its Elaichi, and Pan Masala not containing tobacco, under the brand, VIMAL. The petitioner subsequently learnt through media reports that the Assistant Commissioner (Food), FDA Greater Mumbai, had issued a show-cause notice to its brand ambassadors concerning the advertising campaign under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Aggrieved that no notice was issued to the manufacturer directly, P B Agro approached the Delhi High Court seeking to quash the notice and restrain any coercive action against its endorsers.
The petitioner contended that the writ petition was maintainable in Delhi under Article 226(1) and 226(2) of the Constitution of India because FSSAI and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare are headquartered in New Delhi, the advertising campaign was operated and paid for from Delhi, and the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) in Delhi was already examining surrogate advertising issues.
Conversely, the Union of India, FSSAI, and CCPA raised a preliminary objection regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction, submitting that the impugned notice was independently issued by the Maharashtra State FDA to noticees residing in Mumbai.
Dismissing the petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction, the High Court observed that no direction or command had been issued by FSSAI directing the Maharashtra FDA to initiate the impugned action.
“…this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to establish that any substantial or material part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The impugned show cause notice was issued by the FDA, Mumbai, State of Maharashtra – to the brand ambassadors engaged by the petitioner, who are residents of Mumbai – in relation to alleged activities and alleged statutory violations in Maharashtra. Though the petitioner has impleaded the Ministry and the FSSAI, which are situated in Delhi, as parties in the writ petition, neither any specific relief is claimed against either of them, nor any direction or order passed by these authorities has been challenged before the Court or even placed on record with the writ petition…”, the Bench said.
“The present petition is, accordingly, held to be nonmaintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. In addition, the Court also finds that courts in Maharashtra are the more appropriate and convenient forum for the petitioner to raise its grievances concerning the impugned notice, as per doctrine of forum conveniens”, it noted further.
Cause Title: P B Agro LLP v. Union of India and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:7810)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Senior Advocates Dayan Krishnan and Mohit Mathur, with Advocates Dr. Seema Jain, Ajay K. Jain, Dushyant K. Mahant, Shivani G. Mahant, Ripudaman Sharma, Harish C. Suri, Radhika Yadav, Shreedhar Kale, and Vignesh Ramanathan.
Respondents: ASG Chetan Sharma, CGSC Rukhmini Bobde, GP Vinay Koushik, Advocates Vinayak Aren and Aishwarya Nigam, Rakesh Chaudhary and Jay Sharma, Officer Shubham Gill.