Summary
The Court set aside an indefinite blacklisting of a veterinary-drug manufacturer. The manufacturer had not supplied under the tender invoked against it, the notice did not disclose contemplated blacklisting, and its labelling-error explanation was not considered. The High Court wrongly dismissed the challenge solely for delay despite continued representations, continuing commercial consequences and absence of affected third-party rights. No remand was ordered after the long lapse of time.
Issues
- Whether the tender-based indefinite blacklisting complied with natural justice and reflected proper consideration.
- Whether delay required threshold dismissal of the writ petition.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaApplied discretionary and equitable principles governing delay, considering the explanation, continuing consequences, illegality, proportionality and third-party interests. (¶¶ 14, 16)
Held
- The manufacturer had not supplied the injection directly under the tender invoked for blacklisting. Reliance on that tender without addressing this fact showed non-application of mind. The drugs were found misbranded rather than spurious or adulterated, and the explanation of an inadvertent labelling error had not been considered. (¶¶ 8, 9, 12)
- A notice must expressly propose blacklisting or clearly convey that intention. General reference to appropriate tender action, even if tender terms mention blacklisting, was insufficient here. The omission denied a meaningful opportunity to address the proposed severe consequence. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12)
- The indefinite order had serious continuing effects and was disproportionate on this record. Having found it invalid from inception on multiple grounds, the Court declined to remand for fresh consideration after the long passage of time. (¶¶ 12, 13, 16)
- Delay in writ proceedings is a discretionary consideration, not an automatic statutory bar. The appellant had pursued the authorities; their inaction and a consequential Rajasthan tender rejection explained the eventual challenge. With no third-party rights affected, the High Court failed to exercise its discretion judiciously by dismissing solely for delay. (¶¶ 8, 14, 16)
- The attempt to justify the action by reference to the Drugs Act failed because compliance with its prescribed procedure was not established; the asserted sample-purchase material did not demonstrate such compliance. (¶ 15)
Result
Appeal allowed. High Court dismissal and the indefinite blacklisting order both set aside; no remand to the authorities.