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
