Haseeb Pharmaceuticals Private ... vs The Telangana State Medical ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2082 Tel

Item No.6



      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                                   AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY


                          W.A.No.290 of 2021

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)


1.     The appellant/writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated

20.04.2021, passed in W.P.No.2135 of 2020, filed by it for declaring

the notice to show cause dated 21.06.2017, issued by the respondent

No.1 as arbitrary and unreasonable and further, to direct the

respondent authorities to release the payment of a sum of

Rs.4,36,18,455/- in its favour for the products supplied and consumed

by the respondents.

2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed

the writ petition by noticing that there is an arbitration clause provided

in the contract governing the parties and that the appellant/writ

petitioner ought to have invoked the same in the event of any dispute

with the respondents. The court has also observed that there are

disputed question of facts raised in the writ petition that ought not to

be entertained by exercising judicial review.

3. On a perusal of the averments made by the appellant/writ

petitioner in the writ petition, it transpires that a notice to show cause

dated 21.06.2017 was issued by the respondent No.1 to the

appellant/writ petitioner stating inter alia that it had supplied some IV

Fluids to the respondents, which had resulted in 13 patients losing

their vision which was attributed to the usage of the contaminated IV

Fluids. It is stated that the said IV Fluids were tested by the Drug

Control Authorities and found to be not of a standard quality. As a

result, all the products supplied by the appellant/writ petitioner were

recalled and the appellant/writ petitioner was called upon to offer its

explanation.

4. It is not in dispute that vide reply dated 24.06.2017, the

appellant/writ petitioner had duly replied to the notice to show cause

and an order was passed on the said reply. But, for reasons best

known to the appellant/writ petitioner, it did not take any steps to

approach the court for relief from June, 2017 till the writ petition was

finally filed on 20.01.2020. The explanation sought to be offered by

learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner for the inaction is that

negotiations were on between the parties in all this duration. But we

find that there is not a whisper about the purported negotiations in the

writ petition. In our opinion, the writ petition as filed by the

appellant/writ petitioner itself was highly belated.

5. Be that as it may, we have enquired from Mr. P.Kishore Rao,

learned counsel for the respondents to inform us of the fate of the

show cause notice dated 21.06.2017, issued to the appellant/writ

petitioner, only to be told that the Department is still awaiting reports

from the Central Drug Laboratory. That is a subsequent event. The

respondents could not have waited such a long time to take a decision

on the notice to show cause issued to the appellant/writ petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondents states that the Department shall

take a decision on the notice to show cause, if granted some time.

6. The respondents are directed to decide the notice to show cause

dated 21.06.2017 on the basis of the reply dated 24.06.2017, furnished

by the appellant/writ petitioner, within three weeks from today, under

written intimation to it. If the appellant/writ petitioner is aggrieved by

the decision taken, it shall be entitled to seek appropriate legal

recourse.

7. The present appeal is disposed of along with the pending

applications, if any.

______________________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 13.07.2021 JSU/PLN