3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire process of blacklisti
ng the petitioner-firm was not in accordance with law, as according to the petitioner, the tes
ting report was not in conformity with the procedure prescribed. It has also been submitted th
at the reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner-firm has not been considered
by the opposite party-Corporation while passing the impugned order.
4. Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that though the
specific ground in reply to the show cause notice may not have been mentioned, but the order o
f blacklisting the petitioner-firm is perfectly justified in the facts of the present case.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstanc
es of the case, we are satisfied that the impugned order has been passed without considering t
he detailed reply submitted by the petitioner-firm. From perusal of the impugned order dated 0
6.08.2016, it is evident that the specific reply given by the petitioner-firm has not been dea
lt with. All that has been stated in the said order with regard to reply of the petitioner-fir
m is that after hearing the party and examining the documents, it is seen that the supplier ha
s no satisfactory explanation to offer. Once an explanation has been given by the petitioner-f
irm, it has to be specifically stated in the order as to why the said explanation is not satis
factory. The contention of the petitioner-firm is that the sample drugs had to be examined by
two NABL Laboratories or Government Laboratories, which point had been specifically raised in
the show cause notice, but not dealt in the impugned order. It has further been submitted that
after passing of the impugned order, the reports of the State laboratories have already been
received which, according to the petitioner-firm, are in its favour.
6. Considering the fact that the impugned order has been passed without taking into acco
unt the specific reply given by the petitioner-firm and dealing with the same, we are of the o
pinion that the impugned order dated 06.08.2016 deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ
petition stands allowed. The order dated 06.08.2016 passed by the Managing Director of the opp
osite party-Corporation is quashed. The opposite party-Corporation shall be at liberty to pass
fresh order in accordance with law after considering the reply of the petitioner-firm. It is
further provided that since it is not disputed that after passing of the impugned order certai
n reports have been received from the State Laboratories, the petitioner-firm shall be at libe
rty to submit fresh reply annexing therewith the copies of such reports, which shall be consid
ered by the opposite party-Corporation while passing the final order.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
