Introduction:

In a significant legal development, Dabur India Limited filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging the prohibition order issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) against a particular batch of its product, “Dabur Honey” (Batch No. NP5819), manufactured on February 13, 2024, with a “Use By” date of August 12, 2025. The prohibition order, dated January 29, 2025, was based on a risk assessment conducted by FSSAI, citing concerns over public health and safety. Dabur sought interim relief to stay the operation of this order, arguing procedural lapses and violations of natural justice principles.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Dabur India Ltd.):

Represented by Advocate Mr. Sourajit Dasgupta, Dabur contended that the prohibition order was issued without proper communication and violated the principles of natural justice. They argued that the recall order, which formed the basis of the prohibition, was never served upon the company. Furthermore, Dabur highlighted that they had filed a statutory appeal on September 19, 2024, which was not admitted due to alleged non-submission of requisite documents and testing fees—a claim they refuted by pointing to annexed documents in the writ petition. Dabur also cited the Jammu & Kashmir High Court’s judgment in Bashir Ahmed Shergojri v. U.T. J&K and Others [2021 SCC OnLine J&K 836], where similar prohibition orders were quashed, to support their case.

Respondent’s Arguments (FSSAI):

FSSAI, represented by Senior Advocate Ms. Vineeta Meharia, opposed the grant of interim relief, emphasizing that the prohibition order was issued after a thorough risk assessment by food safety principles and public interest. They argued that Dabur’s appeal was not admitted due to the company’s failure to submit necessary documents and testing fees. FSSAI maintained that the prohibition was interim and limited to a specific batch, thereby not constituting a complete halt of business operations.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Om Narayan Rai, presiding over the Calcutta High Court, refused to grant interim relief to Dabur India Ltd. The Court observed that nearly six months had elapsed since the prohibition order came into effect, and granting a stay at this stage would not serve any purpose. The Court emphasized that the prohibition was based on public safety concerns and risk management assessments, and was explicitly stated to be interim, remaining in force “until further orders.”

Distinguishing the present case from the Jammu & Kashmir High Court’s ruling, the Court noted that the earlier case involved a complete halt of business operations, whereas the current prohibition was limited to a specific batch of Dabur Honey. Highlighting the public health implications, the Court stated:

“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 prohibitions at this stage. Such a stay would permit the writ petitioner to put on sale the prohibited batch without assessing the damage that might be caused to the public at large upon consumption of the prohibited batch. The risk factors are far higher than the loss that the writ petitioner may incur. Looking at it from another angle, granting a stay would in a sense amount to granting final relief at the interim stage.”

Consequently, the Court directed FSSAI to file an affidavit within a week detailing the communication regarding the appeal’s non-admission and the service of the recall order upon Dabur. The Court also granted liberty to Dabur to revive its prayer for interim relief after the filing of the affidavit.