DELHI HIGH COURT: FSSAI’S PRESENCE IN DELHI CANNOT CONFER JURISDICTION; DISMISSES WRIT AGAINST MAHARASHTRA FDA’S SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO VIMAL ENDORSERS:

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. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable before it for want of territorial jurisdiction. It further ruled that the mere presence of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in Delhi could not confer jurisdiction to examine an action independently initiated by a State authority in Maharashtra against persons resident in Mumbai concerning alleged activities confined to that State. The Court also concluded that the courts in Maharashtra constituted the more appropriate forum under the doctrine of forum conveniens.

Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, sitting as a Single Judge, observed that the fact that FSSAI is the apex body under the relevant enactment, or that it is situated in Delhi, cannot alter the source or character of the show-cause notice under challenge. The petitioner had not pointed to any independent order, direction or decision of the Ministry or FSSAI that was under challenge. In the Court’s considered view, the mere impleadment of those authorities, without any specific relief being sought against them and without any impugned action attributable to them, could not create territorial jurisdiction where none otherwise existed.

P B Agro LLP had entered into formal endorsement agreements with prominent actors to promote its Elaichi and Pan Masala products not containing tobacco under the VIMAL brand. The company subsequently learned through media reports that the Assistant Commissioner (Food), FDA Greater Mumbai, had issued a show-cause notice to its brand ambassadors in connection with the advertising campaign under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Aggrieved that no notice had been issued to the manufacturer itself, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court seeking to quash the notice and to restrain any coercive action against the endorsers.

The petitioner argued that the writ petition was maintainable in Delhi under Article 226(1) and 226(2) of the Constitution 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 in Delhi was already examining issues of surrogate advertising. The Union of India, FSSAI and the Central Consumer Protection Authority raised a preliminary objection on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, submitting that the impugned notice had been independently issued by the Maharashtra State FDA to noticees residing in Mumbai.

Dismissing the petition, the High Court noted that no direction or command had been issued by FSSAI requiring the Maharashtra FDA to initiate the action in question. It held that the petitioner had failed to establish that any substantial or material part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The show-cause notice was issued by the FDA, Mumbai, to the brand ambassadors engaged by the petitioner, who are residents of Mumbai, in relation to alleged activities and statutory violations in Maharashtra. Although the Ministry and FSSAI, both situated in Delhi, had been impleaded as parties, neither any specific relief was claimed against them nor any direction or order passed by those authorities was challenged or even placed on record.

The Court accordingly held the petition non-maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. In addition, it found that the courts in Maharashtra were the more appropriate and convenient forum for the petitioner to raise its grievances concerning the impugned notice, applying the doctrine of forum conveniens.