In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has declined to grant interim relief to Dabur India Ltd. in a writ petition challenging the recall of a batch of its Dabur Honey product. The Court observed that allowing a stay on the prohibition would expose the public to health risks without evaluating potential harm.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Om Narayan Rai noted:
“The scales of the balance of convenience and inconvenience in the instant case do not appear to this Court to be tilting in favor of staying the operation of prohibition at this stage. Such 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.”
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The case titled Dabur India Limited vs. Union of India & Others (WPA 26167 of 2024) stems from a recall order issued on January 29, 2025, targeting Batch No. NP5819 of Dabur Honey. The batch, packed on February 13, 2024, and marked “use by August 12, 2025”, was recalled by the authorities over safety concerns.
According to the writ petition, Dabur India had filed an appeal on September 19, 2024, but the respondents declined to admit it, citing non-submission of necessary documents. Dabur contended that this reasoning was baseless and argued that the prohibition order violated the principles of natural justice.
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED
For the Petitioner (Dabur India Ltd.):
Advocates Sourajit Dasgupta, Sudhakar Prasad, and Utkarsh Mukherjee argued that the refusal to admit the appeal was not justified and sought interim relief against the recall and prohibition orders.
For the Respondents:
Advocates Vineeta Mehria, Amit Mehria, Paramita Banerjee, Rohan Raj, and Sonali Pal defended the recall, highlighting procedural lapses and the potential risk posed by the continued sale of the batch in question.
COURT’S OBSERVATIONS AND REASONING
The Bench emphasized that the case involved only one specific batch, and the prohibition had already been in effect for about six months.
“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,” the Court noted.
Further, the Court reasoned that even if the prohibition order was stayed, the recall order would remain effective, placing the petitioner in the same legal position.
“In such view of the matter, justice would be subserved if the respondents are directed to bring on record the communications relating to the admission of the appeal as well as the communication of the recall order to the writ petitioner by way of an affidavit within a week from the date,” the Bench added.
FUTURE COURSE OF ACTION
The Court concluded that Dabur India Ltd. would be entitled to revive its request for an interim order after reviewing the affidavit to be filed by the respondents.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Calcutta High Court denied an interim stay on the prohibition of a Dabur Honey batch.
The Court cited public safety concerns over commercial losses.
The matter is still active pending further submissions by the respondents.
