Kerala High Court
M/S.Unicure (India) Limited vs State Of Kerala on 17 July, 2025
R.P.819 of 2025 1 2025:KER:52559
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TH
THURSDAY, THE 17
DAY OF JULY 2025 / 26TH ASHADHA,
1947
RP NO. 819 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.06.2025 IN WA NO.1403
OF 2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
/S.UNICURE (INDIA) LIMITED
M
C-22 & 23, SECTOR - 3, NOIDA - (UTTAR PRADESH)
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR ABDUL MATEEN, PIN - 201301
BY ADV SMT.LAKSHMI RAMADAS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 TATE OF KERALA S REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 HE MANAGING DIRECTOR T KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION LTD., P.O.THYCAUD. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 0.07.2025, 1 THE COURT ON 17.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.P.819 of 2025 2 2025:KER:52559 ORDER Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J. Heard on the question of admission. 2.ThepresentreviewpetitionhasbeenfiledunderOrderXLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of the judgment dated 19.06.2025 passed in W.A.No.1403 of 2021. 3.Thereviewpetitioneristheappellantinthewritappeal.The appealwasfiledagainstthejudgmentpassedinW.P(C)No.17330of 2021 dated 20.10.2021. In the writ petition Exts.P9 and P14 were challenged. Ext.P9 order was issued by the 2nd respondent blacklisting a drug supplied by the petitioner.Ext.P14istheorderof the 1st respondent affirming Ext.P9 order. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 20.10.2021. In the writ appeal this Court had remanded back the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication and while remandingthematter, this Court proceeded on the assumption that there was achallenge to Annexure A1 notice proposing to blacklist the firm, in the writ R.P.819 of 2025 3 2025:KER:52559 petition and as such, the learned Single Judge was directed to consider the aspect of blacklisting as well. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitionerisnotaggrievedbyremittingbackthemattertothelearned Single Judge, but this Court ought to have only remitted the matter for reconsideration of the validity of Exts.P9 and P14 orders which were under challenge in the writpetition.Therefore,theorderunder review required modification to the limited extent of requiring consideration of validity of Exts.P9 and P14 orders. In fact, the question of blacklisting of the Company would not arise for consideration. 5.Thelearnedcounselforthepetitionerhasdrawnattentionof this Court in Paragraph No.4 as well as the last paragraph of the impugned judgement dated 19.06.2025, where the learned Single Judge has requested to consider the prayers with regard to blacklisting of the Company along with blacklisting of drug. 6. On a perusal of the judgment impugned as well as the recordsofthewritpetition,wefindthatanapparenterrorhascreptin Paragraph No.4 and the last operative paragraph of the judgment. R.P.819 of 2025 4 2025:KER:52559 7. In the circumstances, the sentence starting from 6thlinein Paragraph No.4 "and not in respect of blacklisting of theappellant- Company even though there was specific prayer to that effect. Learned Single Judge ought tohavedecidedwhethertheimpugned judgment was in respect of blacklisting of theproductorblacklisting of the Company as well. Therefore, there is a debateastowhether the statement of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent will apply only to blacklisting of the product or to the Company" is replacedwith"ThelearnedSingleJudgemayonlyconsidertheissue with regard to blacklisting of drug and notwithregardtoblacklisting of the Company." 8. So far as the last operative portion of the judgment is concerned, the sentence "The learned Single Judge is requestedto consider the prayers with regard to blacklisting of drug as well as blacklisting of the Company as has already been prayed for in the writ petition, as expeditiously as possible" is replaced with "The learnedSingleJudgeisrequestedtoconsidertheprayersasperthe prayer clause made in the writ petition, as expeditiously as possible." With the aforesaid modifications, the review petition stands allowed. R.P.819 of 2025 5 2025:KER:52559 This order be read in conjunction with the judgment dated 19.06.2025 passed inW.A.No.1403 of 2021. Sd/- SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE Sd/- SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE MC/14.7