Court holds that mere location of petitioner's office in Delhi and presence of apex authority FSSAI cannot confer jurisdiction when impugned notice originates entirely from Maharashtra; establishes that territorial jurisdiction is determined by substantial cause of action, not incidental facts
The Delhi High Court, in a significant judgment on territorial jurisdiction, dismissed a writ petition filed by P.B. Agro LLP against a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Mumbai, on September 14, 2026. The Court, presided over by Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, held that the High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the petition.
Background of the Case:
P.B. Agro LLP, a Delhi-based Master Licensee for the manufacture and sale of "VIMAL" Elaichi (cardamom) and pan masala, sought to challenge the SCN dated August 11, 2026, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Food), FDA, Greater Mumbai Division, Mumbai, Maharashtra. The notice was issued to the petitioner's brand ambassadors, all residents of Mumbai, concerning alleged violations related to surrogate advertising and prohibition of pan masala under the Food Safety and Standards (FSS) Act, 2006.
Notably, the SCN was never issued directly to the petitioner, nor was it afforded any opportunity to submit a reply before approaching this Court.
Petitioner's Arguments:
The petitioner contended that the writ petition was maintainable before the Delhi High Court based on two grounds:
1. Article 226(1): The petition was directed against the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), both located in New Delhi, with FSSAI being the apex authority under the FSS Act.
2. Article 226(2): A substantial part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi, as the petitioner's business operations, advertising campaign management, and payments to brand ambassadors were conducted from Delhi, and the entire commercial injury was suffered in Delhi.
The petitioner relied heavily on Bakshish Ahmad v. Union of India: 2026 INSC 630, arguing that the SCN, though issued to brand ambassadors, effectively constituted directions against the petitioner itself.
Respondents' Counter Arguments:
The learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) and representatives of FSSAI argued that the petition was fundamentally non-maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. They emphasised that:
- - The SCN was independently issued by the FDA, Mumbai, under the Government of Maharashtra
- - No substantial relief was sought against the Ministry or CCPA
- - The mere location of the petitioner in Delhi could not confer jurisdiction over an action taken by a State authority in Maharashtra
- - The State of Maharashtra, being the principal authority responsible for issuing the notice, was not even a party before this Court
Court's Analysis:
The Court undertook a comprehensive examination of the doctrine of territorial jurisdiction and the concept of "cause of action" under Indian jurisprudence.
Key Findings on Territorial Jurisdiction:
1. Nature of Impugned Action: The Court found that the SCN was an independent action initiated by FDA, Mumbai, under the Government of Maharashtra, with no direction from FSSAI to issue the notice. The mere fact that FSSAI is the apex body situated in Delhi could not alter the source or character of the notice.
2. Material Connection with Maharashtra: The Court identified that all material facts connected with the case were located in Maharashtra:
- - The authority issuing the notice (FDA, Mumbai)
- - The persons addressed by the notice (three brand ambassadors, all residents of Mumbai)
- - The alleged prohibited activity (manufacture/sale in Maharashtra)
- - The statutory provisions invoked (Sections 24 and 30(2)(a) of FSS Act relating to Maharashtra-specific restrictions)
3. Distinction Between Cause of Action and Incidental Facts: The Court elaborated on the fundamental principle that not every fact pleaded constitutes part of the cause of action. Relying on Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim: (2007) 11 SCC 335, the Court observed:
"For the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the appellant-petitioner would or would not constitute a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such fact constitutes a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action."
The Court emphasised that facts such as the petitioner's location in Delhi, management of advertising campaign from Delhi, and payment of brand ambassadors from Delhi were merely incidental and lacked direct nexus with the impugned action.
4. Petitioner's Own Pleadings: The Court noted that the petitioner's own challenge to the SCN revealed that the real dispute was situated in Maharashtra. The petitioner had argued that:
- - Pan masala is prohibited in Maharashtra
- - VIMAL Elaichi (the advertised product) is not a prohibited commodity
- - No VIMAL-branded pan masala was manufactured or sold in Maharashtra
- - GST authorities found no manufacturing unit or transport network dealing in VIMAL pan masala in Maharashtra
These assertions, the Court observed, demonstrated that the central controversy concerned the legality of an action taken by FDA, Mumbai, in relation to alleged activities in Maharashtra.
Forum Conveniens Doctrine:
Even assuming arguendo that some remote or incidental cause of action arose in Delhi, the Court invoked the doctrine of forum conveniens to conclude that Maharashtra courts were the natural and convenient forum for adjudication. The Court observed:
"The courts in Maharashtra are the natural and convenient forum for adjudication of the dispute."
Consequences if Petitioner's Argument Were Accepted:
The Court articulated a critical concern regarding the implications if the petitioner's arguments were accepted:
"If the mere existence of FSSAI in Delhi was sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court, then every show cause notice or order issued by a Food Safety Commissioner or an officer of the Food and Drug Administration of any State in the country could be challenged before this Court...Such an interpretation would render the territorial limitations contained in Article 226 practically meaningless."
Conclusion:
The Delhi High Court concluded that:
1. The petitioner failed to establish that any substantial or material part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi High Court.
2. The impugned SCN was issued entirely by FDA, Mumbai, to brand ambassadors residing in Maharashtra, in relation to alleged activities in Maharashtra.
3. Though the petitioner impleaded the Ministry and FSSAI (situated in Delhi), no specific relief was claimed against either authority, nor had any direction or order passed by these authorities been challenged.
4. The petition was non-maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction.
5. Additionally, applying the doctrine of forum conveniens, the courts in Maharashtra were the more appropriate and convenient forum.
The Court dismissed the petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's substantive challenge to the SCN, emphasising that the petitioner is free to pursue its grievances in the appropriate jurisdiction.
Bottom Line:
Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1) and Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India is determined by substantial and material facts constituting the cause of action, not incidental or remote facts - Doctrine of forum conveniens requires that disputes be adjudicated in the appropriate and convenient jurisdiction.
Statutory Provision(s):
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226(1), Article 226(2); Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Section 4, Section 16(5), Section 24, Section 30(2)(a); Consumer Protection Act, 2019; Border Security Force Act, 1968;
P B Agro LLP v. Union of India, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2978311
