##PAGE1##

29.12.2025

Item No.14

Ct. No.7

RP

WPA 29273 of 2025

Budge Budge Refineries Ltd. & Anr.

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Atish Ghosh

Mr. Arindam Chandra

Ms. Antara Dey

Ms. Neha Gupta

… For Petitioners

Ms. Monika Roy

… For FSSAI

1. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be

kept on record.

2. The petitioners, who claim to be the

manufacturer of products under the

brand name “Doctor’s Choice” has

challenged the improvement notice dated

December 15, 2025 issued under Section

32 of the Food Safety and Standards Act,

2006.

3. Mr. Saha, learned senior advocate

appearing for the petitioners submits that

at least on three earlier occasions,

improvement notices on more or less

identical allegations were issued and the

concerned authority, namely, the Food

##PAGE2##

2

Safety and Standards Authority of India

after considering the relevant materials

have filed an action taken report in a

pending writ petition stating that the

petitioners have complied with the

improvement notice by removing all

misleading claims from the advertisement

as well as from the labels and has also

submitted a copy of the rectified labels.

He submits that FSSAI has exceeded its

jurisdiction by issuing the improvement

notice dated 15th December,2025

containing the allegations which have

already culminated in an action taken

report filed in an earlier writ petition.

4. Learned advocate representing the

respondent/FSSAI raises a preliminary

objection as to the maintainability of the

writ petition. By referring to the

provisions laid down in Sub-section 4 of

Section 32 of the Food Safety and

Standards Act 2006 the learned advocate

for the respondent authority submits that

##PAGE3##

3

any person aggrieved by the improvement

notice has to prefer an appeal before the

Commissioner of Food Safety.

5. She further submits that the allegations

contained under serial no.7 of the notice

dated December 15, 2025 was not part of

the allegations contained in the earlier

improvement notice(s).

6. After going through the earlier

improvement notices this Court finds that

most of the allegations contained in the

improvement notice dated December,

2025 were the subject matter of the earlier

improvement notices dated 15th March,

2023, 18th April, 2023 and 12th October,

2023. It appears from the report filed by

the authorities in the form of affidavit in

WPA 6460 of 2024 at the instance of one

Independent Research Ethics Society, that

the respondent authority has specifically

stated that in compliance with the

improvement notice the FBO i.e. writ

petitioner herein had already rectified the

##PAGE4##

4

product labels as directed and also

submitted copies of the rectified labels.

FBO has also provided a disclaimer

regarding the said trademark.

7. At this stage it would relevant to take note

of the order passed by the Central

Consumer Protection Authority in case

no.CCPA/2/16/2023-CCPA dated May 30,

2024 whereby the said authority directed

the petitioner, with respect to its brand

name “Doctor’s Choice” to display a

disclaimer in not less than 3 mm size at

the appropriate place on the label stating

that- “This is only a brand name or

trademark and does not represent its true

nature” as required under Regulation 4(7)

of the Food Safety and Standards

(Advertising and Claims) Regulations,

2018 and the petitioner shall provide the

aforesaid disclaimer clearly and visibly in

the advertisement of its products under

the brand name “Doctor’s Choice” and if

##PAGE5##

5

subsequent violation is found a penalty

shall be imposed upon the petitioner.

8. It is not the case made out in the

impugned improvement notice dated

December 15, 2025 that the petitioner has

violated the earlier directions. However, it

prima facie appears to the Court that in

the improvement notice dated December

15, 2025 the authorities have mentioned

the violations, which were the subject

matter of earlier improvement notices and

corrective action has already been taken.

9. Though the learned advocate appearing

for the FSSAI would submit that the

violations under serial no.7 of the

impugned improvement notice

Click Here to Read the rest of this document