D.RAKESH vs THE UNION OF INDIA

W.P.No.45614 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.11.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.P. No. 45614 of 2026
CNR:{ HCMA012680312026 }
and W . M . P . No.51216 of 2026

D.Rakesh
Son of K.Damodaran,
residing at No.23, 3rd Cross Street,
Duraisamy Nagar, Arasaradi,
Madurai-625016.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Union of India
through Secretary, Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare, having his office
at Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep by its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Food and Drug Administration,
Food Safety and Standards Authority of India,
having its office at 3rd and 4th Floor,
FDA Bhawan, Kotla Road, Near Bal Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110002.
4.The Commissioner,
Food Safety and Drug Administration
______________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:59 pm )

W.P.No.45614 of 2026
Department, 359, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai - 600 009.
5.The Central Consumer Protection Authority,
Room No. 567-A, Krishi Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 011.
6.P.B.Agro LLP
having its registered office at 57,
Second Floor, Main Ring Road
Lajpat Nagar-3, New Delhi - 110 024.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus (A) directing Respondent
Nos.1 to 5 and/or any other appropriate authority empowered to take
action or proceedings, to forthwith enquire and take action/
proceedings against Respondent No.6 for violations of the provisions of
(i) Section 53 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, (ii) Food
Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018, (iii)
Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales)
Regulations, 2011, (iv) Food Safety and Standards (Food Products
Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011, (v) Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 and the CCPA Guidelines for Prevention of
Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading
Advertisements, 2022, (vi) Section 5 read with Section 22 of the
Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement
and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and
Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTPA), and (vii) Rule 7 of the Cable Television
Networks Rules, 1994 framed under the Cable Television Networks
(Regulation) Act, 1995, for the promotion of the Pan Masala /Gutkha
/prohibited goods in the guise of promoting the product Elaichi to
prevent the gullible consumers from being tempted to buy the same;
(B) directing Respondent Nos.1 to 5 to issue appropriate directions to
Respondent No.6 to discontinue/not to hereafter indulge in surrogate or
deceptive advertisement of Pan Masala/Gutkha/prohibited goods in the
guise of promoting the product Elaichi, to prevent the residents of
Tamil Nadu from being misled into consumption of Pan
Masala/Gutkha/prohibited goods.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Santhosh Paul,
______________
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:59 pm )

W.P.No.45614 of 2026
Senior Counsel
for Mr.Arul Gnanaprakash
For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Guruprasad,
State Government Pleader
for R2 and R4
Mr.V.Chandrasekaran,
Senior Panel Counsel
for R1, R3 and R5
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The petitioner seeks a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 5 to
act against the sixth respondent over its advertisements for " Vimal
Elaichi " alleging that these advertisements are a disguised way of
promoting Vimal Pan Masala.
2.1. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that the sixth
respondent manufactures both Pan Masala and Kesar Elaichi
(cardamom with saffron) under the common brand " Vimal ". Both are
food products, and both are registered with the Food Safety and
Standards Authority of India. The sixth respondent advertises Vimal
Elaichi on television, in print, on social media and on hoardings,
using three well-known film actors. According to the petitioner, the
Vimal brand is known for Pan Masala. It is asserted that it is hard to
______________
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:59 pm )

W.P.No.45614 of 2026
believe that a company would spend so much to sell cardamom. The
petitioner, therefore, pleads the campaign is a surrogate
advertisement, and that it breaches the Food Safety and Standards
Act, 2006, the Advertising and Claims Regulations, 2018, the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the CCPA Guidelines of 2022, the
Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003, and the Cable
Television Networks Rules, 1994.
2.2. To support the aforesaid asseverations, the petitioner
relies on media reports. The petitioner submitted that in August
2026 the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration issued show-
cause notices to the three actors. The notices say the advertisement
appears to link Vimal Elaichi with Vimal Pan Masala, which is
prohibited in Maharashtra under an order dated 13.07.2026. He
adds that the Commissioner of Food Safety in Tamil Nadu has issued
orders under Section 30 of the 2006 Act against tobacco and
nicotine based chewable products. He asserts that the authorities in
Tamil Nadu have done nothing about the sixth respondent.
______________
Page 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:59 pm )

W.P.No.45614 of 2026
2.3. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a mandamus directing an
inquiry and action against the sixth respondent, and a direction that
it stop the advertisement.
3. We have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner at the admission stage and his primordial
contention is that the advertisement is surrogate on its face, that no
one can claim protection under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of
India for such a campaign, and that the media reports from
Maharashtra make out a prima facie case.
4. Public interest litigation is an extraordinary legal remedy
designed to assist those unable to approach the court themselves.
Consequently, it demands rigorous and credible material rather than
mere guesswork. This jurisdiction cannot be set in motion based on
speculation, internet rumors, or unverified news reports lacking
proper foundational research.
5. Tested against the aforesaid standard, the petition cannot
go forward, for the following reasons:
______________
Page 5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:59 pm )

W.P.No.45614 of 2026
(i) Most of the key averments are made on the footing
that the petitioner is " advised " or has " learnt through
social media ". The only documents are newspaper and
web reports of notices issued in another State. Those
notices are show-cause notices. They record a prima
facie view and call for an explanation. They are not
findings. We are told that one of the actors has
challenged his notice before the Bombay High Court,
so the matter is still open there. The notices also rest
on a prohibition order specific to Maharashtra. An
action taken by one State, on its own order and at a
preliminary stage, gives us no basis to direct the
authorities in Tamil Nadu to proceed against anyone.
(ii) The case of the petitioner rests on suspicion. He
accepts that Elaichi is a recognised food product, that
it is registered with the FSSAI, and that no law bars its
advertisement. He also admits that he found no gutka
or tobacco product sold by the sixth respondent under
the Vimal brand. He adds only that such a possibility
" cannot be ruled out ". On that footing he wants this
Court to order an inquiry under the tobacco law as
______________
Page 6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:59 pm )

W.P.No.45614 of 2026
well. A writ court does not order inquiries on the
chance that something may turn up.
(iii) The allegation that the advertisement is surrogate
is a question of fact . The answer depends on whether
the advertised product is genuinely sold, how it is
packaged and marketed, what the advertisement says
and shows, and what the advertiser intended. The Food
Safety and Standards Act, the Consumer Protection Act
and the other laws cited already give the competent
authorities the power to examine these matters, hear
the advertiser and decide. We cannot declare the
campaign surrogate on the basis of the affidavit filed
by the petitioner, without any concrete substantiating
material.
(iv) A mandamus needs a legal duty and a failure to
perform it. The petitioner says the respondents " are
not taking any action ". Yet, he admits in his affidavit
that he made no representation to any of them. An
authority that has never been told of a grievance
cannot be said to have ignored it. The petitioner could
have complained to the Commissioner of Food Safety
______________
Page 7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:59 pm )

W.P.No.45614 of 2026
or to the Central Consumer Protection Authority,
however, he chose to come directly to this Court.
6. In light of the above findings, this court holds that the writ
petition is premature and lacks merit. Accordingly, the writ petition
is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The connected
miscellaneous application is closed.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
11.11.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sasi
______________
Page 8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:59 pm )

W.P.No.45614 of 2026
To:
1. The Secretary, Union of India
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
having his office
at Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011.
2.The Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Food and Drug Administration,
Food Safety and Standards Authority of India,
having its office at 3rd and 4th Floor,
FDA Bhawan, Kotla Road, Near Bal Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110002.
4.The Commissioner,
Food Safety and Drug Administration
Department, 359, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai - 600 009.
5.The Central Consumer Protection Authority,
Room No. 567-A, Krishi Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 011.
______________
Page 9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:59 pm )

W.P.No.45614 of 2026
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
(sasi)
W.P. No. 45614 of 2026

11.11.2026
______________
Page 10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:59 pm )