Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: In a writ petition by Dabur India challenging a prohibitory order passed under Section 36, Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, a Single Judge Bench of Amit Mahajan, J., held prima facie that a prohibitory order of such nature ought not to have been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the party concerned. The Court, observing that the impugned order had been passed without issuance of a show-cause notice or adherence to the principles of natural justice, stayed the operation of the impugned order.
Background
Dabur India challenged the prohibitory order dated 3 August 2026, purportedly passed by the Designated Officer in exercise of powers under Section 36, Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, whereby sale of the products specified therein was prohibited and the petitioner was granted 15 days’ time to report compliance. DABUR India submitted that the products had been sold for several decades and, without prejudice to the contention that the Designated Officer had no power to impose such prohibition, the impugned order had been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was contended that no show-cause notice had been issued and that even in a case of emergency prohibition, notice was required to be served upon the party concerned. It was further submitted that the present case was concededly not one of emergency prohibition.
Analysis
The Court, upon considering the submissions advanced by Senior Counsel, was prima facie of the opinion that a prohibitory order of such nature ought not to have been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. The Court thus found substance, at the prima facie stage, in the contention that the impugned order had been passed without following the principles of natural justice, particularly when no show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing had admittedly been afforded to the Petitioner.
Decision
The Court issued notice, which was accepted by the learned Standing Counsel, and directed that reply, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing. Considering the arguments advanced, the Court stayed the impugned order dated 3 August 2026 till the next date of hearing. The matter was directed to be listed on 24 August 2026 before the Roster Bench.
Also Read: Del HC restrains Patanjali from calling other chyawanprash ‘dhoka’ | SCC Times
[Dabur India Ltd. v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 11282 of 2026, decided on 7-8-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Sandeep Sethi, Ankur Chibber, Sr. Advs. with R. Jawahar Lal, Meghna Kumar, Shreya Sethi & Krisna Gambhir, Advocates
For the Respondent: Ashish K. Dixit, CGSC with Umar Hashmi, Ayush Kumar, Iqra Sheikh, Surya Joshi, Priyanka Singh and Aamir Zuffar Khan, Advocates
