Disposed

M/S Vetsun Pharmaceuticals , Agra Thru. Proprietor Mahesh Chand Singhal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Animal Husbandry Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024WRIC/6283/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order debarring them from tenders due to alleged discrepancies in medicine manufacturing location. Court noted no allegations of substandard goods and quashed the order's applicability of specific clauses. Order stayed until further orders.

What did the court decide?

Cont application for stay of order refusing to participate in E bid reference no.2648/ Pur. Cell/ E – Tender/ Medicine.202425 projected to tenders till the next date, order dated 12.7.2024 shall remai

M/S Vetsun Pharmaceuticals , Agra Thru… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6283 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Vetsun Pharmaceuticals , Agra Thru. Proprietor Mahesh Chand Singhal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Animal Husbandry Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Yadava,Purusharth Prem Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel who appears on behalf of State – respondents.

¶4

This petition has been filed with the following main prayer :-

¶5

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 12.7.2024 passed by opposite party no.2 contained as Annexure no.1 to the present writ petition.

¶6

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding/ directing the opposite parties to direct the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to participate in tenders for the financial year 2024-25 for supply of Medicines/ Hormones/ Vitamines etc to the Departments of Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh vide E – bid reference no.2648/ Pur. Cell/ E – Tender/ Medicine.202425.

¶7

(iii) Issue a writ,order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding/ directing the oppostie parties to permit the petitioner to do business in the Animal Husbandry Department, Uttar Pradesh during the pendency of the Writ Petition, in the interest of justice"

¶8

A mention was made in the morning that the writ petition was filed yesterday and should be taken up today as today tender documents are to be opened and the petitioner has been debarred from taking part in the tender.

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm having place of business of manufacturing and supply of drugs in several parts of the country. The principal place of business is KH- 27, village – Mandavar, Bhagwanpur, Roorkee, District - Haridwar, Uttarakhand.

¶10

The petitioner had participated in the E - tender for the year 2023-2024 floated by the respondents through online bidding and, thereafter contract of supply of medicines was executed between petitioner firm and the Director of the Department on 04.10.2023 for the period starting with effect from 04.10.2023 up to 31.3.2024 which was later on extended till 30.6.2024. The petitioner has been making supply of medicine on the basis of the terms and conditions as mentioned in the contract.

¶11

Another tender notice was issued on 13.3.2024 and the petitioner has applied in pursuance of tender notice and the technical bids are to be opened today.

¶12

However, on 09.7.2024 the Directorate has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on the basis of some complaint made to it on 04.7.2024, that the petitioner firm is supplying the injections Doramectin (10 mg) which was manufactured at some other place and not the place mentioned in the contract, i.e. village Lalpur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

¶13

The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice on 10.7.2024 saying that manufacturing units of M/S Vetsun Pharmaceuticals are situated at both places, i.e., at Sisona, Bhagwanpur, District Roorkee, Uttarakhand and at village Lalpur District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand. It was also mentioned by the petitioner that the petitioner firm has only supplied medicines made in village Lalpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakahand during the contract extension period, i.e., up to 30.6.2024.

¶14

Now, by the impugned order dated 12.7.2024 the petitioner's company has been banned from participating in any tender for supply of medicine on the ground that the petitioner firm is supplying medicines from a third party manufacturing unit.

¶15

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are two manufacturing units of the petitioner, one at village Lalpur and other at village Sisona, both in Uttarakhand. It has also been mentioned that in the impugned order dated 12.7.2024 mention has been made of para 6.2 of Section II of the contract agreement which reveals to sub standard, spurious medicines being supplied. Para 6.2 is inapplicable as is evident from the facts of the case.

¶16

It has also been submitted that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 7 page 55 of the paper book has mentioned that the injection Doramectin that was supplied by the petitioner was being manufactured at village Lalpur whereas in the contract

¶17

agreement licence issued at village Sisona has been mentioned. A wrong inference has been drawn by the respondent that the petitioner's supply of medicine is being affected as the manufacturing is being done at some other place than the one mentioned in the contract agreement.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to annexure - 2 to the writ petition which is a copy of the licence issued to the petitioner which mentioned village - Mandavar, Bhagwanpur, Village – Roorkee, District Haridwar, Uttarakhand as the main place of business and two additional places of business have been mentioned as village - Sisona, Tahsil - Bhagwanpur and village Lalpur Kichha, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State- respondents has pointed out the extract of the contract agreement that has been signed between the parties. Section- III (F) of the contract form wherein several conditions have been mentioned and it has been mentioned that non compliance of terms and conditions of the tender or of the contract or of the agreement and also in the case of forged documents show cause notice will be issued to the supplier and in case of finding the supplier to be guilty not only their earnest money /performance security as the case may be, forfeited & deposited in the Govt Treasury but the firm will be banned to participate in tender and to do business in the Department for one year and in case of repetition of such offence the firm will be banned from doing business for the next three years.

¶20

It has been argued that the contract agreement provides that the supplier shall mention the place of manufacture of the drug which is being supplied. In the case of the petitioner the contract agreement has mentioned village Sisona as the place of manufacture of injection Doramectin but the vial of the said injection shows it to be manufactured at village Lalpur under a different licence number.

¶21

Counsel for the petitioner at this stage has stated that there is no allegation of supply of spurious or sub standard medicine and the petitioner's supply may be made either from the village Lalpur or from village Sisona as the licence that has been issued by the licencing authority mentions two additional places of business beyond village Mandavar Bhagwanpur which has been mentioned as principal place of business.

¶22

We are prima facie of the opinion that the matter requires consideration.

¶23

There is no allegation of spurious or sub standard supply of medicine by the petitioner and, therefore, para 6.2 which has been quoted in the show cause notice and in the order impugned, does not apply.

¶24

Let respondents file counter affidavit within three weeks. One week's time thereafter is granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner for filing a reply. Till the next date of listing the order dated 12.7.2024 shall remain in abeyance.

¶25

List on 20.8.2024.

¶26

Order Date :- 22.7.2024 mks

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Vetsun Pharmaceuticals , Agra Thru. Proprietor Mahesh Chand Singhal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Animal Husbandry Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Vetsun Pharmaceuticals , Agra Thru. Proprietor Mahesh Chand Singhal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Animal Husbandry Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rima Sarkar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning U.P. Govt. Lko. and Others

Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Govt. of India Ministry of Defence , New Delhi and Others vs No. 1470655M Ex Nk Hari Pal Singh

Union of India Thru. Secy. Govt. of India Ministry of Defence , New Delhi and Others vs Jc 367973-F Sub Maj Balendra Prasad Pandey (Retd.)

Surendra Kumar vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance , New Delhi and Others

Khushi Ram vs Union of India Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi and Others

Ram Khelawan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development U.P. Lko. and Others