Delhi High Court
Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 December, 2016
$~48
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 19.12.2016
+ W.P.(C) 11802/2016
MODI-MUNDIPHARMA PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Dhruv Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr.N.S.Ahluwalia,
Mr Salil Seth and Mr Hansdeep Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ms Ruchi Jain, Advocate for R-1.
Mr Kirtiman Singh and Mr Waize Ali Noor, Advocates
for NPPA
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
19.12.2016
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CM No.46581/2016(exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 11802/2016 & CM No.46580/2016(stay)
1. The petitioner impugns the notification, i.e. standing order
No.1687(E) dated 09.05.2016 as also the letter of 05.07.2016 and the
order/letter dated 19.09.2016 rejecting the review application of the
petitioner on the ground that the same has been filed after a period of
thirty days of the publication of the Notification.
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner had, immediately, on becoming aware of the notification,
made a representation to the respondents and the respondents by
impugned letter dated 05.07.2016, rejected the representation.
3. It is contended that it was thereafter that the petitioner filed the
review application. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends
that the respondents, while issuing the impugned notification, have
not categorized the different variants of the drugs of the petitioners
and have not distinguished between the Sustained Release and the
Controlled Release Dual Mechanism of the formulation. Learned
senior counsel for the petitioner relies on the explanation to the
Notification dated 10.03.2016 to contend that unless the variants were
specified in the impugned notification, the notification would not be
applicable to any formulation.
4. It is contended that the petitioner had taken recourse to filing a
representation as there was an error apparent in the impugned
notification and the review application was filed on the rejection of
the representation.
5. It is contended that the review application has been rejected
solely on the ground that the same has been filed after the period of
thirty days. It is contended that in terms of the Drug Price Control
Order, 2013, the petitioner has to follow the direction to fix the price
as per the notification, which the petitioner has already done, grave
prejudice is being caused to the petitioner.
6. The petitioner contends that as per it there is an error apparent
in the notification and the petitioner had made a representation to the
concerned authorities, which was disposed of on 05.07.2016 and
immediately thereafter the review has been filed.
7. Without going into the merits of the contentions of either party,
in light of the above, I am of the view that there is sufficient
explanation for the petitioner not filing the review petition within
time.
8. In view of the above, the rejection of the review petition solely
on the ground of limitation cannot be sustained.
9. The Review Petition is restored and the matter is remitted to the
appropriate authority to consider the Review Petition in accordance
with law. The petitioner shall also be afforded an opportunity of
personal hearing. The appropriate authority shall dispose of the
Review Petition within a period of four weeks.
10. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the contention of
either party on merits and the competent authority may consider the
Review Petition in accordance with law, without being influenced by
anything stated in this order.
11. The writ petition is disposed of, in the above terms.
12. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
DECEMBER 19, 2016
'Sn'
