Kerala High Court
M/S. Bharat Parenterals Ltd vs The State Of Kerala on 4 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/14TH POUSHA,1942
WP(C).No.21421 OF 2020(C)
PETITIONER:
M/S. BHARAT PARENTERALS LTD,
144 & 146, JROSAMILA ROAD,
VILLAGE HARIPURA, TALUKA: SAVIL,
DISTRICT VADODARA,
GUJARAT, PIN:391 520,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
BHARAT R DESAI.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF
SMT.K.VIDYA
SHRI.SATHEESH V.T.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2 THE KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION LTD,
THYCAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695014,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
R2 BY SRI.M.AJAY,SC,KERALA MEDICAL SERV.CORPN
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RASHMI K.M.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 04-01-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WPC No.21421/2020
:2:
[CR]
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.21421 of 2020
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2021
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The petitioner, a Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing
Company, is before this Court seeking to quash Ext.P10
order of the 1st respondent blacklisting one of the products of
the Company and to quash Ext.P13 order of the 2 nd
respondent blacklisting the Company itself for a period of
three years.
2. Facts necessary to decide the lis involved in the
writ petition are as follows:-
The petitioner has been supplying pharmaceutical
products to the 2nd respondent-Kerala Medical Services
Corporation Limited for the last several years. The petitioner
WPC No.21421/2020
was a successful bidder in respect of several drugs under
Category I, pursuant to notification for the year 2016-'17
dated 27.11.2015. The petitioner submitted their tender in
respect of various drugs including Clobazam Tab 5 mg. with
minimum shelf life required of 36 months. The tender was
accepted by the 2nd respondent. Clauses 6.29.8 and 6.29.9
of Ext.P1 e-tender document, provided as follows:-
"6.29.8. If any two batches of the particular
item supplied by the firm during the contract period,
fail in any of the quality tests conducted by the tender
Inviting Authority and/or by the Drugs Control
Department, then that particular product of that firm
will be blacklisted for a period upto 3 years as per
Clause 6.39.
6.29.9. In the case of the bidder supplying more
than one item during the contract period, and if two or
more items supplied by the supplier are blacklisted
based on the above process, then the firm itself will be
blacklisted as per the procedure detailed in Clause
6.39."
The 2nd respondent as per letter dated 09.03.2016, required
the petitioner to supply the items as per the terms and
conditions in the tender document.
3. The petitioner was required to supply Clobazam
Tab 5 mg. of a total quantity of 23 lakhs units. The petitioner
WPC No.21421/2020
effected supply as against purchase orders issued by the 2 nd
respondent. The petitioner submitted test/analysis reports
furnished by an independent NABL accredited laboratory after
testing the drugs of each batch.
4. The 2nd respondent issued show-cause notice
dated 03.10.2018 requiring the petitioner to show-cause why
the petitioner should not be blacklisted. It was alleged in the
show-cause notice that an e-mail had been received from the
Drugs Controller on 06.01.2018 stating that batch No.T7026
of Clobazam Tab 5 mg. was declared as "Not of Standard
Quality" on statutory sampling and the product was not
complying with "dissolution test". The petitioner pointed out to
the 2nd respondent that the drug supplied by the petitioner
satisfied all requisite tests and dissolution test was not
mandatory as the drug was not an IP Drug (Indian
Pharmacopoeia Drug).
5. It appears that IP Addendum 2016 was brought
into effect from 01.04.2016, by which a test of dissolution was
made one of the requisite parameters for Clobazam Tab. All
WPC No.21421/2020
IP specified drugs should have IP monograph with the name
of the drug. As the tender in which the petitioner participated
for supplying Clobazam Tab 5 mg. was before the IP
Addendum 2016. The agreement of the petitioner with the 2 nd
respondent was for supplying Clobazam Tab 5 mg. (without
IP monograph).
6. The petitioner would state that at no point of time
the 2nd respondent had insisted the petitioner to supply
Clobazam Tab IP 5 mg. having the standard prescribed in IP
Addendum 2016. Therefore, the show-cause notice itself was
in violation of Ext.P1 tender conditions. Clause 6.5.6 of
Ext.P1 tender conditions stated that if the drug is official in
Indian Pharmacopoeia, the licence to manufacture the
product shall be for IP specification. Since on the date of
Ext.P1 tender notification and also on the date on which the
petitioner submitted their tender offering, the product was not
official in Indian Pharmacopoeia, the petitioner was not
required to have a licence to manufacture the said product for
IP specification. In view of tender conditions, the 2 nd
WPC No.21421/2020
respondent cannot insist that the drug Clobazam Tab 5 mg.
should comply IP specification as per the Addendum 2016 of
Indian pharmacopoeia.
7. The Managing Director in charge of the 2 nd
respondent gave an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The petitioner pointed out that the tablets were manufactured
by the petitioner as per permission/licence granted in 2013 by
the FDCA, Gujarat. The manufacturing facilities were
inspected by regulatory officials and licence was granted after
satisfying that the petitioner has complied with all statutory
requirements. The representatives of the 2 nd respondent also
inspected the factory and manufacturing units and the 2 nd
respondent accepted the tender after inspecting the
manufacturing unit and having satisfied that the method and
procedure followed by the petitioner is in conformity with the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
8. The 2nd respondent, however, issued Ext.P5 order
blacklisting the petitioner-Company for a period of three years
and declared that the writ petitioner will be ineligible to
WPC No.21421/2020
participate in any of the tenders floated by the 2 nd respondent
during the said period. Aggrieved by Ext.P5, the petitioner
filed Ext.P6 appeal before the 1st respondent-State of Kerala.
The 1st respondent took a lenient stand treating the issue as a
special case. The penalty of blacklisting of the Company was
relaxed and the blacklisting was confined to the product
Clobazam Tab 5 mg. alone for a period of three years, as per
Ext.P10 order dated 07.09.2019.
9. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued a further
show-cause notice dated 03.02.2020 requiring the petitioner
to show-cause as to why the petitioner-company should not
be blacklisted for a period of three years. The 2 nd respondent
alleged that another product of the petitioner, namely
Enalapril Maleate Tab IP (Film Coated) was already
blacklisted and since the Clobazam Tab 5 mg. is also being
blacklisted, the petitioner-company itself is liable to be
blacklisted in view of Clause 6.29.9 of Ext.P1. The petitioner
submitted reply to the show-cause notice. The 2 nd
respondent, however, passed Ext.P13 order blacklisting the
WPC No.21421/2020
petitioner-company for three years from 28.09.2020, the date
of Ext.P13 order.
10. The petitioner contends that Ext.P13 has been
passed without application of mind and in violation of
principles of natural justice. Ext.P13 is a non-speaking order
passed without considering the contentions of the petitioner.
Ext.P13 is vitiated by legal malafides also. The 2 nd
respondent should not have taken a stand that two products
had been blacklisted and the petitioner-company was
therefore liable to be blacklisted.
11. The petitioner argued that no offer was made by
the petitioner to the 2nd respondent to supply Clobazam Tab 5
mg. as an IP product. The tender conditions did not require
the petitioner to supply the said drug as an IP product. No
authority has found that the Clobazam Tab 5 mg. supplied by
the petitioner is a spurious drug. The petitioner has not
violated any of the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Blacklisting of a Company is a drastic measure and it can be
done only on cogent materials. The petitioner has not
WPC No.21421/2020
violated any of the tender conditions. Therefore, the
impugned orders are illegal, contended the petitioner.
12. The 2nd respondent strongly resisted the writ
petition filing counter affidavit. The learned Standing Counsel
for the 2nd respondent pointed out that Clauses 1.4 and 1.9 of
the NIT stipulate that it is the obligation of the manufacturer
and supplier to produce and supply drugs of standard quality.
Clause 2.3.15 specifically emphasises that supply of drugs in
contravention to any of the provisions of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act and supply of all drugs in violation of the
tender conditions, will lead to blacklisting of the Firm.
13. The Standing Counsel further pointed out that as
per the footnote to Clause 4.1 of the NIT, for drugs included
in the Indian Pharmacopoeia, only such standards will apply
and for products not included in the current IP but included in
its immediate previous edition, the said standards in the
previous edition of the IP shall apply.
14. The learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd
respondent urged that two batches of Enalapril supplied by
WPC No.21421/2020
the petitioner were declared to be Not of Standard Quality by
the Government Analyst. After notice to the petitioner, the 2 nd
respondent blacklisted the said product Enalapril supplied by
the petitioner for a period of three years. Now, since
Clobazam Tab 5 mg. supplied by the petitioner was also
found to be Not of Standard Quality, the petitioner-company is
liable to be blacklisted.
15. According to the 2nd respondent, Ext.P10 was
issued by the 1st respondent-appellate authority on erroneous
premises. It is not so much relevant that the petitioner was
required to supply Clobazam tablets without IP specification.
When addendum was brought to the IP in the year 2016, the
petitioner was liable to supply Clobazam with the IP
specification. This is specifically so in view of the provisions of
the NIT and also in view of the statutory requirements. Since
the petitioner violated statutory requirements and contract
conditions, the Clobazam Tab 5 mg. of the petitioner was
blacklisted.
16. Since Enalapril tablets of the petitioner were
WPC No.21421/2020
already blacklisted, Clobazam Tab 5 mg. became the second
product of the petitioner which is blacklisted. Therefore, in
terms of Ext.P1, the petitioner-company was liable to be
blacklisted. The action of the 2 nd respondent is keeping in
mind public interest and the necessity of not marketing NSQ
drugs. Therefore, no interference is warranted in Ext.P13
order, contended the learned Standing Counsel for the 2 nd
respondent.
17. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st
respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the 2nd respondent.
18. Facts are not much in dispute. Ext.P1-NIT was
issued on 27.11.2015. Ext.P1 would show that the petitioner
was required to supply Clobazam Tab 5 mg., without IP
specification. In fact, when Ext.P1 was issued, the Clobazam
tablets were not brought under IP specifications. By a letter
dated 09.03.2016, the 2 nd respondent accepted the offer for
supply of Clobazam Tab 5 mg. (without IP specification) and
WPC No.21421/2020
also requested the petitioner to supply the tablets. It is to be
noted that even on the said date, the Clobazam Tab 5 mg.
was not brought under IP. It is an admitted position that
Clobazam Tab 5 mg. was brought under IP only with effect
from 01.04.2016.
19. Ordinarily, when the petitioner has entered into an
agreement with the 2nd respondent for supply of Clobazam
Tab 5 mg. without IP specification and when the 2 nd
respondent demanded supply of the agreed Clobazam Tab 5
mg. (without IP specification), the petitioner cannot be found
fault with. But, Clause 2.3.15 of Ext.P1 emphasises that
supply of drugs in contravention to any of the provisions of
the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the supply of drugs in
violation of the tender conditions will lead to blacklisting of the
bidders.
20. In this case, the petitioner was put to a precarious
situation. Their agreement with the 2 nd respondent was to
supply Clobazam Tab 5 mg., without IP specification. The
Dissolution Test was not a requirement for the said drug. The
WPC No.21421/2020
2nd respondent also required the petitioner to supply
Clobazam Tab 5 mg. without IP specification. The petitioner
supplied Clobazam Tabs 5 mg. as required by the 2 nd
respondent. But, by the time supply was effected, the IP
Addendum 2016 was brought into force from 01.04.2016
which mandated IP specification for the drug.
21. There is indeed a statutory duty on the part of the
petitioner to comply with IP requirements for the drug once IP
Addendum 2016 is brought into force. Perhaps, the petitioner
was not aware of the amendment. It is to be noted that the 2 nd
respondent, who is dealing exclusively in drugs and
pharmaceuticals, also did not notice IP Addendum 2016 and
required the petitioner to supply the drug complying with IP
requirements. It is only when the Drugs Control Authorities
noticed the deficiency and brought it to the notice, that the 2 nd
respondent swung into punitive measures against the
petitioner. The petitioner has subsequently revised the
formula of the drug to make it IP compliant subsequently, as
stated in Ext.P10.
WPC No.21421/2020
22. Therefore, it is amply clear that though there was
statutory violation, the violation was not deliberate. The drug
Clobazam Tab 5 mg. supplied by the petitioner was not
spurious drug as defined in Section 9-B of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940 though it was not IP compliant from
01.04.2016. This exceptional situation was taken note of by
the appellate authority, which in Ext.P10 order observed as
follows:-
"Government have examined the contentions of
both the parties in detail. There is absolutely no
illegality or arbitrariness from the part of Kerala
Medical Services Corporation Ltd. in having blacklisted
the firm based on the statutory test report. However,
at the same time, it is to be admitted that blacklisting of
a company is indeed a drastic step which can even
lead to the complete shut down of the company and as
such it is to be definitely tested against the
proportionality principle. Here, in the present case, it
appears that there is no that much violation of rules
involving criminal/fraudulent intent or glaring
negligence leading to serious defects which are to be
dealt with heavy hand warranting blacklisting of the
firm straight away before blacklisting the said product.
Here, no instances of selling grossly sub standard,
adulterated, spurious or imitation drug products with
fake licence. Though cannot take it up for granted,
here the representative of the firm is seen to have
contended that they were not aware of the inclusion of
the drug in the IP at first and they revised the formula
of the drug to make it statute compliant during 2018
itself. It is very embarrassing to see that even Kerala
WPC No.21421/2020
Medical Services Corporation was not aware of the
inclusion of the product in the IP subsequent to the
tender process, till the said test report was received.
Moreover, as per clauses 6.28.11, 6.28.12 & 6.28.38
of the tender document, only if 2 or more products
supplied by a firm failed in quality, the penalty of
blacklisting need be resorted to. Though there is
grave violation of Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940, in not
having made the drug, statute complaint, subsequent
to the inclusion of the same in the IP, the present case
is an odd one for the first time happening in the tender
process of Kerala Medical Services Corporation
Limited."
Accordingly, the 1st respondent treated the issue as a special
case, and modified the blacklisting of petitioner-company as
blacklisting of the product Clobazam Tab 5 mg. alone for a
period of three years. This Court do not find any illegality in
Ext.P10 order of the 2nd respondent-appellate authority.
23. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner that
the issue before the appellate authority being legality of
blacklisting the petitioner-Company, the appellate authority
ought to have confined its consideration on the said issue
alone and should not have blacklisted Clobazam Tab 5 mg.,
cannot be accepted. The issue before the appellate authority
was the non-compliance of IP specification of Clobazam Tab
WPC No.21421/2020
5 mg. based on which the Company was blacklisted. The
appellate authority has all the powers of the original authority
while considering an appeal. The appellate authority has only
modified the punishment and imposed a lesser one which the
2nd respondent could have imposed, and it cannot be said to
be illegal or irregular.
24. However, subsequent to Ext.P10 appellate order,
the 2nd respondent initiated fresh proceedings to blacklist the
petitioner-Company entirely on the specious ground that
another product of the petitioner, namely Enalapril Maleate
Tab IP (Film Coated) was blacklisted earlier as per an earlier
order dated 08.03.2018 and and since Clobazam Tab 5 mg.
also stands blacklisted as per Ext.P10, the petitioner-
Company itself is liable to be blacklisted in view of Clause
6.29.9 of Ext.P1 and the 2 nd respondent passed Ext.P13 order
blacklisting the petitioner-Company for three years. It is true
that the provisions contained in Ext.P1 enable the 2 nd
respondent to blacklist the petitioner-Company if two of its
products are blacklisted during contract period. The question
WPC No.21421/2020
is whether the 2nd respondent has exercised the power to
blacklist the petitioner in a fair and judicious manner. Though
the issue of blacklisting a Firm/Company falls within the realm
of contract, there cannot be arbitrariness in exercise of
powers of blacklisting by the State and instrumentalities of the
State. Arbitrariness and discrimination in such matters will
warrant and justify judicial review of such action by a writ
court.
25. In Kulja Industries Ltd. (M/s) v. Chief General
Manager, W. T. Project. BSNL and others [(2014) 14 SCC
731), while dealing with the issue of blacklisting, the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that where there is arbitrariness in State
action, Article 14 springs up and judicial review strikes such
an action down. Every action of the state executive authority
must be subject to rule of law and must be informed by
reason. Whatever be the activity of the public authority, in
such monopoly or semi-monopoly dealings, it should meet the
test of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Apex Court
further held that 'debarment' is recognised and often used as
WPC No.21421/2020
an effective method for disciplining deviant
suppliers/contractors who may have committed acts of
omission and commission or frauds including
misrepresentations, falsification of records and other
breaches of the regulations under which such contracts were
allotted. What is notable is that the debarment is never
permanent and the period of debarment would invariably
depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the
erring contractor.
26. In Gorkha Security Services v. Govt. of NCT of
Delhi and others [(2014) 9 SCC 105], the Hon'ble Apex
Court described the action of blacklisting which is termed as
"civil death". In the judgment in Medipol Pharmaceutical
India Private Limited v. Post Graduate Institute of Medical
Education and Research and others [2020 (9) ADJ 369],
the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the State need not enter into
any contract with anyone but if it does so, it must do so fairly
without discrimination.
27. In the case of the petitioner herein, the petitioner-
WPC No.21421/2020
Company was blacklisted by the 2 nd respondent as per Ext.P5
order, based on the fact that Clobazam Tab 5 mg. supplied by
the petitioner-company did not satisfy the IP specifications.
The said action was challenged by the petitioner before the 1 st
respondent-Appellate Authority. The Appellate authority heard
the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. The Appellate Authority
specifically found that in the petitioner's case there is not that
much violation of rules involving criminal/fraudulent intent or
glaring negligence leading to serious defects which are to be
dealt with a heavy hand warranting blacklisting. The Appellate
Authority further found that there is no instance of petitioner
selling grossly substandard, adulterated, furious or imitation
drug products with a fake licence. While arriving at such
conclusion, the Appellate Authority noted that even the 2 nd
respondent was not aware of the inclusion of the product in
the IP subsequent to the tender process till the test report
was received. The appellant authority rightly found that the
case of the petitioner deserves leniency and limited the
blacklisting to the product Clobazam Tab 5 mg. for a period of
WPC No.21421/2020
three years. The Appellate Authority therefore obviously felt
that the blacklisting of the company itself would be too harsh
punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case.
28. However, the 2nd respondent even thereafter and in
spite of the specific findings of the 1 st respondent-Appellate
Authority, ventured to dig out blacklisting of another product
of the petitioner-company and passed Ext.P13 order
blacklisting the petitioner-company on the ground that since
two of the products of the petitioner-company have been
blacklisted, the company itself is liable to be blacklisted in
view of the provisions contained in Ext.P1. The action of the
2nd respondent can be only termed as arbitrary. The 2 nd
respondent could have brought the blacklisting of one product
of the petitioner to the notice of the Appellate Authority and
justify the blacklisting of the petitioner-company as per Ext.P5
order. The 2nd respondent did not opt to do so.
29. The Appellate Authority took into consideration the
entire facts and circumstances leading to Ext.P5 order of
blacklisting. The appellate authority was of the view that the
WPC No.21421/2020
supply of Clobazam Tab 5 mg. not satisfying IP specification
by the petitioner is an exceptional case which requires a
lenient approach. The appellate authority was of the view that
blacklisting of the petitioner-Company based on supply of
Clobazam Tab 5 mg., was unwarranted and accordingly
imposed a lesser punishment.
30. When the appellate authority was of the view that
blacklisting of petitioner-Company based on supply of
Clobazam Tab 5 mg. was unjustified, the 2nd respondent
should not have clubbed the said issue with blacklisting of
another product of the petitioner-company earlier, so as to
again blacklist the petitioner-Company. By Ext.P13, the 2 nd
respondent has tried to overreach the appellate authority and
to render Ext.P10 appellate order nugatory, which is
impermissible.
The writ petition is therefore partly allowed. Ext.P13
order of the 2nd respondent is set aside.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/29.12.2020
WPC No.21421/2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE E-TENDER DOCUMENT FOR
PROCUREMENT OF DRUGS CATEGORY 1 AND II FOR
THE YEAR 2016-17 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.
KMSCL/QC/23/2018 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT,
DATED 03-10-2018
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. BPL/2018/975 OF
THE PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 13-
11-2018
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE OF THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. KMSCL/QC/23/2018 OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 09-04-2019
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH
ENCLOSURES, DATED 22-04-2019
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
KMSCL/BRG/ED/1&II/383-BPL/2019, DATED 17-
04-2019
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF THE PETITIONER TO
THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 13-04-2019
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE
HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN W.P(C)
NO. 14661/2019, DATED 28-05-2019
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF G.O (RT) NO. 2219/2019/H AND
FWD DATED 07-09-2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF OUTSTANDING
DETAILS OF AMOUNT DUE TO THE PETITIOENR
FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
WPC No.21421/2020
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT CONTAINING THE
DETAILS OF DRUGS SUPPLIED BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
KMSCL/QC/1020/2019 OF OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT, 28-09-2020
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE LIST OF
COMPANIES BLACK LISTED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT PUBLISHED ON THEIR WEBSITE
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 19.10.2020
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.KMSCL/QC/1020/2019
DATED 22.10.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.KMSCL/QC/819/2017 DATED 08.03.2018.
EXHIBIT R2(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL ADDRESSED TO THE
KMSCL BY THE DRUGS CONTROLLER, KERALA
DATED 05.01.2018.
EXHIBIT R2(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. S
403/218/DC ADDRESSED TO THE KMSCL BY THE
DRUGS CONTROLLER, KERALA DATED
16.01.2018.
EXHIBIT R2(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.
KMSCL/QC/1020/2019 ISSUED BY THE KMSCL TO
THE PETITIONER DATED 03.02.2020.
EXHIBIT R2(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL ADDRESSED TO THE
KMSCL BY THE PETITIONER DATED 26.08.2020.
EXHIBIT R2(f) A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL ADDRESSED TO THE
KMSCL BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28.08.2020.
