Currently Empty: ₹0.00
Can a Delhi High Court Entertain a Challenge to a Maharashtra Regulatory Notice?
A writ petition may involve parties, businesses and government authorities located in different States. But that does not mean that every High Court automatically has territorial jurisdiction over the dispute.
This question arose before the Delhi High Court in P.B. Agro LLP v. Union of India & Ors., decided on 14 September 2026. The petitioner, associated with the VIMAL brand, challenged a show-cause notice issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Mumbai, to three of its brand ambassadors.
The petitioner approached the Delhi High Court because it was based in Delhi and some of the central authorities involved in the wider regulatory framework were also located there.
However, the Court had to first determine a more basic question:
Did any substantial or material part of the cause of action arise within Delhi?
The Court answered in the negative and dismissed the petition for want of territorial jurisdiction. It further held that, even assuming some remote connection with Delhi, Maharashtra was the more appropriate and convenient forum under the doctrine of forum conveniens.
1. Case Snapshot
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Court | Delhi High Court |
| Case | P.B. Agro LLP v. Union of India & Ors. |
| Case Number | W.P.(C) 12664/2026 & CM APPL. 58858/2026 |
| Date | 14 September 2026 |
| Judge | Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma |
| Subject | Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 and doctrine of forum conveniens |
| Impugned Action | Show-cause notice issued by FDA, Mumbai |
| Core Issue | Whether the Delhi High Court could entertain a challenge to a Maharashtra regulatory notice merely because the petitioner and some central authorities were located in Delhi |
| Outcome | Petition dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction |
| Further Finding | Maharashtra was held to be the more appropriate and convenient forum |
| Important Principle | A petition under Article 226 cannot be maintained merely by establishing a remote connection with Delhi when the substantial and material cause of action arose elsewhere |
2. Background and Facts
P.B. Agro LLP was associated with the manufacture and marketing of products under the VIMAL brand, including VIMAL Elaichi. The company had engaged well-known actors as brand ambassadors for its advertising campaigns.
A show-cause notice dated 11 August 2026 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Food), Food and Drug Administration, Greater Mumbai Division, Maharashtra, to three brand ambassadors associated with the VIMAL Elaichi campaign.
The petitioner challenged the notice before the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
P.B. Agro LLP relied, among other things, on its connection with Delhi. It was based in Delhi, and certain central authorities involved in the wider regulatory framework, including the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and FSSAI, were also located there.
However, the respondents argued that the notice had been issued independently by the FDA, Mumbai, under the authority of the Government of Maharashtra. The actual noticees were residents of Mumbai, and no specific action of the Ministry or FSSAI was being challenged.
Consequently, the Court was required to determine whether Delhi had a sufficient territorial connection with the dispute.
3. Legal Issues Before the Court
The Delhi High Court considered the following questions:
- Whether any substantial or material part of the cause of action arose within Delhi so as to invoke the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226.
- Whether the location of the petitioner in Delhi could, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court.
- Whether the presence of central authorities such as the Ministry and FSSAI in Delhi was sufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction when no specific action of those authorities was under challenge.
- Whether the doctrine of forum conveniens required the Delhi High Court to decline jurisdiction in favour of the courts in Maharashtra.
4. Relevant Legal Provisions and Concepts
Article 226 of the Constitution
Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for other legal purposes.
However, the jurisdiction of a High Court is territorially limited.
Article 226(2)
Article 226(2) provides that a High Court may exercise writ jurisdiction where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territory, even when the authority against whom the writ is sought is located outside that territory.
Therefore, the mere location of a respondent outside the State does not necessarily defeat jurisdiction. At the same time, the petitioner must establish a real and legally relevant territorial connection with the dispute.
What Is “Cause of Action”?
The expression cause of action refers to the material facts that give a person the right to seek relief from a court.
Therefore, simply showing that a company has an office in Delhi does not automatically mean that every dispute involving that company creates a cause of action in Delhi.
The relevant question is:
Where did the material facts giving rise to the dispute actually occur?
Doctrine of Forum Conveniens
The doctrine of forum conveniens allows a court to decline to exercise jurisdiction where another court is a more appropriate, natural and convenient forum for resolving the dispute.
This principle becomes particularly relevant when a small or incidental connection exists with one jurisdiction, while the substantial facts and impugned administrative action are located elsewhere.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India was particularly relevant to this aspect. The Delhi High Court relied on the principle that even when a part of the cause of action arises within a High Court’s territory, that alone does not necessarily compel the Court to decide the matter on merits.
5. Why Did the Petitioner Approach the Delhi High Court?
The petitioner attempted to establish a connection with Delhi on several grounds.
First, P.B. Agro LLP was based in Delhi.
Second, certain central authorities, including FSSAI, were located in Delhi.
Third, the petitioner argued that its business and advertising arrangements had a connection with Delhi.
However, the Court distinguished between a general business connection and the material facts forming the cause of action.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s principal relief was directed against the show-cause notice issued by FDA Mumbai.
Therefore, the location of the petitioner alone could not determine territorial jurisdiction.
6. Court’s Reasoning
First, the impugned notice came from Maharashtra
The show-cause notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Food), FDA, Greater Mumbai Division, Mumbai, Maharashtra.
The notice itself referred to the Maharashtra Government and the Food and Drug Administration, Maharashtra State.
Thus, the source of the challenged administrative action was clearly located in Maharashtra.
Second, the actual noticees were in Maharashtra
The notice had been issued to three brand ambassadors who were residents of Mumbai.
Moreover, none of those notices had themselves challenged the notice before the Delhi High Court.
This strengthened the connection between the dispute and Maharashtra.
Third, no independent action of the Delhi-based authorities was under challenge
Although the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, FSSAI and the Central Consumer Protection Authority were impleaded as respondents, the Court found that no specific order or decision of these authorities was being challenged.
Therefore, merely adding a Delhi-based authority as a respondent could not create territorial jurisdiction where it otherwise did not exist.
The Court specifically rejected the idea that impleading a central authority in Delhi could manufacture jurisdiction for a dispute whose real controversy arose elsewhere.
Fourth, the petitioner’s Delhi presence was insufficient
The Court also rejected the argument that the petitioner’s Delhi-based operations automatically created territorial jurisdiction.
A company cannot convert every regulatory action taken by another State’s authority into a Delhi cause of action simply because the company maintains its office in Delhi.
Finally, Maharashtra was the natural forum
Even assuming that some remote or incidental connection with Delhi existed, the Court held that the dispute was substantially connected with Maharashtra.
The notice originated there, the actual notices were located there, and the regulatory action concerned alleged activities in Maharashtra.
Consequently, Maharashtra was considered the natural and convenient forum under the doctrine of forum conveniens.
7. Judgment and Final Outcome
The Delhi High Court held that the petitioner had failed to establish any substantial or material part of the cause of action within Delhi.
Accordingly, the writ petition was held to be non-maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction.
The Court further held that the courts in Maharashtra were the more appropriate and convenient forum for challenging the impugned notice.
Importantly, the Court did not examine whether the FDA notice was legally or factually correct.
The petition was dismissed solely on the question of territorial jurisdiction and forum conveniens.
8. What Does This Case Teach About Article 226?
The case demonstrates that Article 226 provides broad writ jurisdiction, but that jurisdiction is not unlimited.
A petitioner must establish a genuine territorial connection between the dispute and the High Court approached.
Therefore:
Petitioner’s location ≠ automatic territorial jurisdiction
Respondent’s location ≠ automatic territorial jurisdiction
Material cause of action = key jurisdictional consideration
And even where a limited connection exists, the Court may still consider whether another forum is more appropriate under the doctrine of forum conveniens.
9. Legal Principle
The central principle emerging from the case is:
A High Court will not ordinarily exercise Article 226 jurisdiction merely because the petitioner or some central authorities are located within its territory when the impugned administrative action and the substantial cause of action arise in another State.
Furthermore, even where an incidental connection with the forum State can be demonstrated, the Court may decline jurisdiction if another High Court is the more appropriate and convenient forum.
10. Why Is This Case Important for Law Students?
This case is particularly useful for students studying Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and Civil Procedure because it demonstrates that jurisdiction should be considered before the merits of a dispute are argued.
For a lawyer drafting a writ petition, identifying the correct forum is essential.
The case also highlights the difference between:
- territorial jurisdiction, and
- forum conveniens.
A court may have a technical territorial connection with a dispute, yet still decline to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction because another forum is substantially better connected with the dispute.
Thus, the case provides a practical lesson in writ drafting and forum selection.
11. Simple Example
Suppose a company has its registered office in Delhi.
A Maharashtra government authority issues a regulatory notice concerning an activity carried out in Maharashtra. The notice is issued by a Maharashtra officer to persons residing in Maharashtra.
The company cannot automatically approach the Delhi High Court simply because its registered office is in Delhi.
It must first show that a material part of the cause of action arose in Delhi.
Even if some incidental connection with Delhi exists, the Delhi High Court may still decline to hear the matter if Maharashtra is the natural and convenient forum.
12. Quick Revision
| Point | Remember |
|---|---|
| Court | Delhi High Court |
| Case | P.B. Agro LLP v. Union of India & Ors. |
| Date | 14 September 2026 |
| Judge | Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma |
| Case Number | W.P.(C) 12664/2026 |
| Constitutional Provision | Article 226, particularly Article 226(2) |
| Impugned Action | FDA Mumbai show-cause notice |
| Core Doctrine | Territorial jurisdiction and forum conveniens |
| Key Question | Whether a material part of the cause of action arose in Delhi |
| Court’s Finding | No substantial or material cause of action arose in Delhi |
| Appropriate Forum | Courts in Maharashtra |
| Outcome | Petition dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction |
| Merits | Not decided |
One-Line Takeaway
A petitioner cannot invoke Article 226 jurisdiction merely because it is based in Delhi when the challenged regulatory action and substantial cause of action arise in another State; even an incidental territorial connection may not prevent the Court from applying forum conveniens.
13. Did You Know?
The Supreme Court’s decision in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India is important when studying territorial jurisdiction under Article 226.
The Supreme Court recognised that even where a small part of the cause of action arises within a High Court’s territory, that fact does not necessarily compel the High Court to decide the case on merits.
The doctrine of forum conveniens may still justify declining jurisdiction when another forum has a stronger and more substantial connection with the dispute. The Delhi High Court relied on this principle in P.B. Agro LLP.
