The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by P B Agro LLP, the master licensee for VIMAL Elaichi and pan masala not containing tobacco, challenging a show cause notice issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Mumbai, to three of its brand ambassadors.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that the Delhi High Court could not entertain the challenge because the impugned notice originated from Maharashtra, was issued to persons residing in Mumbai, and concerned alleged activities in Maharashtra.
The Court also clarified that the fact that P B Agro operates from Delhi, or that bodies such as the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) are located in Delhi, was not enough to create territorial jurisdiction.
Background of the Case
P B Agro approached the High Court seeking quashing of an August 11, 2026 show cause notice and protection against coercive action arising from alleged non-compliance with it.
The notice had been issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Food), FDA, Greater Mumbai Division, to three brand ambassadors associated with VIMAL Elaichi. P B Agro argued that the advertising campaign was managed from Delhi and that the issue also involved proceedings before the CCPA in Delhi.
The company therefore contended that a substantial part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi.
The respondents opposed the plea, arguing that the notice was independently issued by the Maharashtra food safety authorities and that neither the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare nor FSSAI had issued the impugned notice.
Court’s Observation
Justice Sharma examined whether the mere presence of the petitioner and central authorities in Delhi could confer jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court noted that the petitioner itself had not been served with the show cause notice. The notice was addressed to three brand ambassadors, all residents of Mumbai, and no order had been passed against P B Agro itself.
The Court 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 Court further held that the petitioner’s Delhi office, the place from which the advertising campaign was allegedly managed, and payments made to the brand ambassadors from Delhi did not, by themselves, constitute a material part of the cause of action.
It also rejected the argument that the pendency of separate proceedings before the CCPA in Delhi could confer jurisdiction over an independent notice issued by the Maharashtra authority.
Decision
The Court held that no substantial or material part of the cause of action had arisen within Delhi. It further found that courts in Maharashtra were the more appropriate and convenient forum under the doctrine of forum conveniens.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, with the Court expressly stating that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of P B Agro’s challenge.
The pending application was also disposed of.
Case Details:
Case Title: P B Agro LLP v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 12664/2026 & CM APPL. 58858/2026
Judge: Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Decision Date: September 14, 2026
-300x169.webp)
