Court Rules Foundational Cause of Action Arises in Delhi, Validating Petition Against Show Cause Notice and Ban on "Fortune Soya Health Refined Soyabean Oil"
In a significant judgment delivered on August 31, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, affirmed its territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition filed by AWL Agri Business Limited challenging a show cause notice and an enforcement directive issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).
The petitioner, AWL Agri Business Limited, a leading edible oil manufacturer, sought to quash a show cause notice dated July 17, 2026, and an accompanying letter issued by FSSAI authorities based in Delhi. The notice and letter labeled the petitioner's flagship product, "Fortune Soya Health Refined Soyabean Oil," as a "non-compliant product" under the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018, and the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020. Following these communications, state authorities, particularly in Jharkhand, initiated enforcement actions including stoppage of sale and inspections against the product and its distribution network.
The petitioner contended that these actions effectively prohibited the manufacture, marketing, and sale of their product across India without due process or hearing, thus adversely impacting their business operations and supply chain. They argued that the show cause notice and the impugned letter were issued from Delhi and sought quashing of these communications and restraint on any coercive action by the respondents.
The respondents challenged the maintainability of the petition before the Delhi High Court on grounds of territorial jurisdiction, stating that the petitioner's operations and the alleged enforcement actions occurred outside Delhi, mainly in states like Gujarat and Jharkhand. They contended that the High Court of Delhi lacked jurisdiction since no material part of the cause of action arose within its territorial limits.
Rejecting this contention, the Court emphasized that both the show cause notice and the impugned letter emanated from FSSAI authorities located in Delhi, and that these communications formed the foundational acts that triggered subsequent enforcement actions nationwide. The Court clarified that for jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it was sufficient if a material part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. It held that the issuance of these communications in Delhi was a material part of the cause of action and not an incidental factor.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma further noted that the petitioners were not seeking relief against the state authorities who executed the enforcement but were challenging the foundational orders issued by the Delhi-based respondents. Therefore, the Court concluded that it possessed the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the writ petition.
The Court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file a counter-affidavit within four weeks. The matter is slated for further hearing on November 5, 2026.
This judgment reaffirms the principle that a High Court can exercise writ jurisdiction if a significant part of the cause of action arises within its territorial domain, even if consequential enforcement actions occur elsewhere. It also highlights the procedural safeguards required before labeling a product as non-compliant under food safety laws.
Bottom Line:
Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - A High Court can exercise jurisdiction if a material part of the cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226, Constitution of India, 1950; Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006; Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018; Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020
AWL Agri Business Limited v. Union of India, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2971317
