Justice Amit Mahajan observed that Dabur was selling the products for decades and has made out a prima facie case for relief at this stage as the FSSAI order was passed without giving it any hearing.
“The court is prima facie of the opinion that the prohibitory order ought not to have been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing. Till the next date of hearing, the impugned order is stayed,” said the judge, as it listed the case for hearing after two weeks.
The food safety regulator on Monday held that the use of absolute “100 per cent” claims violates the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018, and directed Dabur to discontinue the sale of several products bearing such claims.
Challenging the order, Dabur moved the Delhi High Court on Thursday, seeking an urgent hearing through senior advocate Sandeep Sethi.
The company argued that the FSSAI had acted without issuing any prior show-cause or improvement notice and without giving it an opportunity to be heard.
The products covered under the FSSAI’s order included Dabur Honey, Dabur Honey Squeezy, Dabur Sunderbans Honey, Dabur Himalayan Apple Cider Vinegar, Dabur Virgin Coconut Oil, Dabur Cow Ghee, Real Activ 100 per cent Tender Coconut Water, Dabur Hommade Coconut Milk and Dabur Organic Honey.
What did Dabur say?
Dabur, in its petition, said that under the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018, the regulator is required to seek clarification from a food business operator and consider its response before taking such action.
It also argued that the regulator’s order effectively required the company to recall or repackage products already available in the market.
Dabur further said that the FSSAI’s decision to publicise the order on social media and advise certain channel partners and online retailers not to sell the affected products had caused the company immediate commercial consequences.
The company also challenged the legal basis of the prohibitory order, arguing that Section 18 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, merely lays down guiding principles and does not independently empower a Designated Officer to prohibit the sale of products.
Furthermore, Dabur contended that the FSSAI’s order was unreasoned and failed to explain how claims such as “100% Pure” or “100% Natural” violated the applicable regulations. According to the company, the order merely stated that the claims “appear to be misleading” without recording any specific findings or reasons.
(With PTI inputs)
