Delhi High Court
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs Union Of India And Anr. on 15 April, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~2 & 3 (14)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2640/2015 and CM No.4731/2015 (interim directions)
RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K. Datta, Mr. Ashish Verma and Mr.
Rahul Malhotra, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Rahul
Sharma, CGSC, Mr. Sumit Rajput, G.P. and Mr.
Vidhur Mohan, Advocates
+ W.P.(C) 2642/2015 and CM NO.4734/2015 (interim directions)
RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K. Datta, Mr. Ashish Verma and Mr.
Rahul Malhotra, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Rahul
Sharma, CGSC, Mr. Sumit Rajput, G.P. and Mr.
Vidhur Mohan, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 15.04.2015
1. In these writ petitions, challenge is laid to a common order dated
03.02.2015 passed by the reviewing authority in terms of paragraph 22 of
the DPCO 1995.
1.1 Before the reviewing authority, challenge was laid to the decision of
W.P.(C) 2640/2015 & 2642/2015 page 1 of 4
the NPPA dated 10.01.2013. The order of NPPA is also a common order.
1.2 To be noted, the order of NPPA came to be passed on applications
filed by the petitioner seeking price fixation / revision of retail prices in
respect of two drug formulations, which are adverted to as Histec EVT
Tablets and Fucibet Cream, available in, 15 gm aluminium tube.
2. The record shows that the petitioner had approached this court in an
earlier round by way of the writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The said writ petition was numbered as : WP(C) 7030/2014.
The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 15.10.2014 with the
following operative directions :-
"..Essentially, the grievance of the petitioner relates to price
fixation of its formulations and the petitioner's grievance can be
addressed by the appropriate authority by considering the review
applications filed under paragraph 22 of the DPCO, 1995.
In the given circumstances, the present petition is disposed
of with a direction that the review filed by the petitioner be
considered by the Reviewing Authority within a period of eight
weeks from today. The Reviewing Authority shall also consider
the grievance of the petitioner with respect to price fixation as
requested by the petitioner under paragraph 8(4) of the DPCO-
1995.
It is clarified that nothing stated herein should be construed
as an expression of opinion on the merits of the petitioner's
contention.."
3. The reviewing authority passed the impugned order, to which I have
made a reference above, i.e., order dated 03.02.2015, in which while
concluding, the following observations were made :-
"..Till such time the old DPCO is replaced by a new DPCO
W.P.(C) 2640/2015 & 2642/2015 page 2 of 4
NPPA should have continued to perform the functions
assigned to it under previous DPCO. The arguments of the
NPPA that the Authority decided to only those cases of price
fixation / revision of formulations where bulk drug prices were
recently revised upwards by NPPA ahs no merit as neither
DPCO 1995 nor pricing Policy 2012 authorised NPPA to do
so. However, since the DPCO 1995 has already been repealed
and saved by the provisions of DPCO 2013 what has been
done or omitted to have been done can be saved. Any fixation
by NPPA on the basis of information in Form III amounts to a
new action. No new action can be taken under provisions of
DPCO 1995 after it has been replaced by DPCO 2013. The
case of Abott quoted by the petitioner is different as in that
case it was a review order on the notification already issued by
NPPA. In the instant case, the prices are yet to be fixed.."
4. The petitioner has approached this court, once again, by way of the
instant writ petition saying that while the first part of the order, as extracted
above, was correct, it is in the last part that the reviewing authority has
committed an error.
5. The petitioners, in brief seek fixation / revision of retail prices in
terms of paragraph 8(4) of the DPCO 1995.
6. Having regard to the apparent contradiction in the order of the
reviewing authority, I had requested the learned ASG to take instructions in
the matter.
6.1 The learned ASG has returned with instructions and, in his usual
fairness, has indicated that the impugned order passed by the reviewing
authority be set aside and the matter be remanded to the said authority to
enable them to pass a reasoned order.
6.2 The learned ASG indicates that this ought not to be treated as a
W.P.(C) 2640/2015 & 2642/2015 page 3of 4
precedent and the methodology suggested be confined to the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the present case.
7. I tend to agree with the learned ASG. Accordingly, the impugned
order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the reviewing authority to take
a fresh decision in the matter. The reviewing authority will issue notice to
the petitioner fixing the date, time and venue for hearing its duly authorised
representative. Upon hearing, the reviewing authority will pass a reasoned
order, which will be communicated to the petitioner. This exercise will be
conducted with expedition though, no later than twelve weeks from today.
7.1 Needless to say, the petitioner will supply all documents / details
which it may be called upon to file by the reviewing authority, within the
prescribed time. In adjudicating upon the petitioner's application due regard
will be given to the directions contained in the order dated 15.10.2014,
passed in the earlier round which, inter alia, provides that the petitioner's
claim that it falls within the provision of paragraph 8(4) of the DPCO 1995,
will be examined by the reviewing authority.
4. With the aforesaid observations in place, the captioned petitions and
the pending applications are disposed of.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
APRIL 15, 2015
yg
W.P.(C) 2640/2015 & 2642/2015 page 4 of 4
