While considering a Petition filed by Dabur India against an order recalling a batch of product of Dabur Honey, the Calcutta High Court has held that the stay of prohibition would permit the petitioner to put on sale the prohibited batch without assessing the damage that might be caused to public at large.

The Calcutta High Court highlighted that the risk factors are far higher than the loss that the writ petitioner may incur.

The Single Bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai held, “The scales of the balance of convenience and inconvenience in the instant case do not appear to this Court to be tilting in favour of staying the operation of prohibition at this stage. Such stay would permit the writ petitioner to put on sale the prohibited batch without assessing the damage that might be cause to public at large upon consumption of the prohibited batch.

Advocate Sourajit Dasgupta represented the Writ Petitioner, while Advocate Vineeta Mehria represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Court was informed that the appeal filed by the writ petitioner on September 19, 2024, has not been admitted by the respondents due to failure of the writ petitioner to furnish/submit the documents, which are necessary for filing the appeal. On January 29, 2025, a recall order was passed. The order recalled the entire batch of the product of “Dabur Honey” manufactured in Batch No. NP5819, packed by the FBO on February 13, 2024 and stated to be used by August 12, 2025.

Arguments

It was the case of the Petitioner that the respondents’ submission that the appeal had not been admitted due to non-submission of necessary documents was without any basis. It was further submitted that the order of prohibition that has been impugned in the writ petition is in any event, fit to be quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that in the case in hand, there is only one batch of Dabur Honey that has been prohibited for sale, and the writ petitioner has suffered such prohibition for about six months by now. “The risk factors are far higher than the loss that the writ petitioner may incur. Looking at it from another angle, granting stay would in a sense amount to granting final relief at the interim stage”, the Bench mentioned.

As per the Bench, even if the order of prohibition was stayed, then also by the operation of the recall order, the writ petitioner would have been at the same position.

“In such view of the matter, justice would be subserved if the respondents are directed to bring on record the communications relating to the admission of the appeal as well as the communication of the recall order to the writ petitioner by way of an affidavit within a week from date”, it said.

The High Court held that the writ petitioner would be entitled to revive its prayer for an interim order after receiving the affidavit from the respondents.

Cause Title: Dabur India Limited Vs. Union of India and others (Case No.: WPA 26167 of 2024)

Appearance:

Writ Petitioner: Advocates Sourajit Dasgupta, Sudhakar Prasad, Utkarsh Mukherjee

Respondent: Advocates Vineeta Mehria, Amit Mehria, Paramita Banerjee, Rohan Raj, Sonali Pal

Click here to read/download Order



Calcutta High CourtJustice Om Narayan Rai

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.