2026:HHC:10507-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 8292 of 2022 Date of decision: 06.04.2026 Dr. Suri Partha Abhiram …Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the Respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1-UoI. Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 2 and 3. Mr. Kunal Sharma and Mr. Jyotirmay Bhatt, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 and 5. G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) The present petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that ‘Saffola Immuniveda Chyawanprash’ manufactured by the respondent No. 4 and marketed by the respondent No. 5 is in violation of Rule 157 (IB) of the D&C Rules; consequently, misbranded under Section 33E of the D&C Act; 2 2026:HHC:10507-DB 2) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 to cancel the Manufacturing Licence No. HP-126-AY under which the respondent No. 4 is manufacturing the product ‘Saffola Immuniveda Chyawanprash’ and the same is being displayed by the respondent No. 5 on the product label & being advertised on its website, e-commerce websites, print/tv media and on social media; 3) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 to initiate appropriate action against the respondents No. 4 and 5 to stop manufacturing, advertising, marketing, disturbing and selling of Chyawanprash with the prefix ‘Immuniveda’ or any other prefix or suffix;” 2. During the course of the proceedings on 10.11.2025, it had transpired that product in question is no longer been manufactured or sold by respondents No. 4 and 5. Resultantly, we directed filing of the affidavit on 23.02.2026. 3. The affidavit now filed by respondent No. 5, would go on to show that the product at present is not being manufactured by or on behalf of respondent No. 5 and the production has been dis-continued since January, 2024. The relevant part reads as under:- “6. That in and around the year 2020, the Deponent introduced a range of products under the brand name ’Saffola IMMUNIVEDA” and in September, 2021, the product “saffola Immuniveda Chywanprash” was launched by Respondent No. 5. This product was manufactured by 3 2026:HHC:10507-DB Respondent No. 4 having its manufacturing unit at Village Kishanpura, P.O. Gurumajra, Tehsil Baddi, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh – 174 101. 7. That during the course of hearing on 10.11.2025, it was submitted on behalf of the Respondent No. 5 that the aforesaid product “Saffola Immuniveda Chywanprash” was no longer being manufactured and that accordingly, the present writ petition becomes infructuous. In the light of this submission, this Hon’ble Court had granted liberty to the respondent No. 5 to file an affidavit in support of the said submission. 8. That the product “Saffola Immuniveda Chyawanprash” is not being manufactured by or on behalf of Respondent No. 5 presently and its production has been discontinued since January, 2024. 9. That the discontinuation of the product is a business decision and does not amount to an admission of the contentions and averments made in the writ petition and the said discontinuation is without prejudice to the rights of respondent No. 5 to use its trademark “Saffola Immuniveda” in any manner permissible by law for the range of its product.” 4. Keeping in view the above, counsel for the petitioner does not wish to press the present petition with liberty to file fresh one when cause of action arise. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending applications, if any. 5. The amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was directed to be deposited by the petitioner as per order dated 20.11.2024 and which had been duly complied as noticed in order dated 4 2026:HHC:10507-DB 20.03.2025, be refunded to the petitioner by way of demand draft through counsel. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) 6th April, 2026 Judge (sanjeev)