A. K. BANERJEE, J. ( 1 ) DEY's Medical Stores Manufacture (U. P.) Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner company') is a small scale industrial unit by virtue of a certificate granted by the Directorate of Industries, Government of Uttar Pradesh on March 9, 1981. The petitioner company is a manufacturer of various drugs and cosmetics having its undertaking at Uttar Pradesh. ( 2 ) ON August 28, 1987 Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1987 was promulgated by the Union of India. According to paragraphs 28 of the said Order of 1987 Central Government by a notification dated October 16, 1987 exempted drug manufacturing unit registered as SSI Unit from operation of paragraphs 9, 11 and 22 of the said Order of 1987 subject to three conditions :-" (I) Unit to be an independent unit and not subsidiary unit owned or Controlled by any other undertaking which is not exempted from application of the 1987 Order; (II) Formulations to be marketed by the concerned unit in their own brand name/trade mark and not brand name of any other company; (III) Such unit to file declaration with Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers within 60 days from the date on which notification is issued to the effect that the concerned unit complied with the two conditions. " ( 3 ) IN terms of the said notification dated October 16, 1987 the petitioner company duly submitted a declaration within the time stipulated under the said notification. ( 4 ) BY virtue of such declaration the petitioner company continued to function as an exempted unit under the said Order of 1987. ( 5 ) ON January 6, 1995 Central Government promulgated Drug (Price Control) Order, 1995 repealing the earlier Control Order of 1987. ( 6 ) BY an Order dated March 2, 1995 Central Government issued a notification in the like nature of the notification dated October 16, 1987 and thereby exempted the SSI unit from operation of paragraph 8 of the said Control Order of 1995. In terms of the said notification dated March 2, 1995 to avail the benefit of exemption SSI Units were to submit a declaration within 60 days from the date of issuance of the said notification. Petitioner company did not submit any such declaration until the time hereinafter stated. In terms of the said notification dated March 2, 1995 to avail the benefit of exemption SSI Units were to submit a declaration within 60 days from the date of issuance of the said notification. Petitioner company did not submit any such declaration until the time hereinafter stated. ( 7 ) BY an Order dated August 29, 1997 Central Government formed a committee namely National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'nppa') to exercise function of the Central Government in respect of various provisions of the said Control Order of 1995. By a further Order dated December 10, 1997 the Central Government had specified as to which small scale industrial undertaking would be exempted under the provisions of Industrial Development and Regulation Act, 1951. ( 8 ) BY a letter dated May 13, 1998 the NPPA asked for various clarifications from the petitioner company. The petitioner company duly replied to the said letter and thereafter correspondences were exchanged from time to time between the petitioner company and the said authority. ( 9 ) BY a letter dated August 24, 1998 the petitioner company submitted a declaration to the Central Government which was required to be submitted within 60 days from the date of issuance of the notification dated March 2, 1995. In the said letter the petitioner company prayed for condonation of delay in submission of such declaration. ( 10 ) AS the NPPA was not satisfied with the particulars submitted by the petitioner company claiming to be an exempted unit it had issued a show cause notice on February 15, 1999 which has been impugned before me in this writ petition. Relevant portion of the said notice is quoted hereinbelow :-"sub : DPCO, 1995 : Exemption as an SSI Unit under S. O. No. 134 (E) dated 2nd March, 1995. Sir, this has reference to your declaration vide letter No. 38/dpco/570 dated 24th August, 1998 and the subsequent data/information submitted by your other group companies namely M/s Dey's Medical Stores Ltd. and M/s Deys Medical Store (Mfg.) Ltd. On the basis of the examination by this office, it has been observed that your declaration under S. O. No. 134 (E) dated 2nd March, 1995 is not correct and your unit is not eligible for exemption under the said S. O. No. 134 (E ). Before initiating penal action for violations of provisions of DPCO and marketing scheduled formulations without price approval, it has been decided to give you an opportunity to present your case in a personal bearing on 5th March, 1999 at 2. 30 P. M. in NPPA office at the above address. Please attend with details particularly in respect of the following :- (a)shares holding of directors in the three companies. (b)cost break up of 'enterofuran M' Capsules in Form III. " ( 11 ) MR. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that whether the petitioner was an exempted unit or not, was clearly within the domain of the Central Government. NPPA had no right to authority to issue such notice to show cause. He further contended that the threat of penal action given by the said authority in the said impugned notice was without jurisdiction. ( 12 ) ON the question of delay in submission of the declaration Mr. Pal submitted that the declaration was duly submitted within the time in accordance with the original Control Order of 1987. In paragraph 27 of the Control Order of 1995 it had been made categorically clear that notwithstanding such repeal of the old Control Order anything done or any action taken including any notification or Order made, direction given, notice issued or exemption granted under the old Order of 1987 usually, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provision of this Order, would be deemed to have done, taken, made, given, issued or granted, as the case may be under the corresponding provision of the said Order of 1995. Since paragraph 27 had protected earlier acts contained under Control Order of 1987 the petitioner company was not required to submit further declaration. In any event, since for abundant caution the petitioner company submitted declaration unless and until it was rejected by the Central Government, NPPA had no authority to question the same. ( 13 ) MR. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that since the petitioner company did not submit declaration as required under the notification issued under the Control Order of 1995 within the stipulated period it was not an exempted unit within the meaning of Control Order 1995 and NPPA was authorized to ask for particulars. Mr. ( 13 ) MR. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that since the petitioner company did not submit declaration as required under the notification issued under the Control Order of 1995 within the stipulated period it was not an exempted unit within the meaning of Control Order 1995 and NPPA was authorized to ask for particulars. Mr. Bandypadhyay further submitted that the day when the particulars were asked for the first time admittedly no declaration was submitted by the petitioner. Impugned notice was a continuity of such action and even if the declaration was deemed to have been accepted by the Central Government NPPA was duly competent to ask for those particulars as the petitioner company was not an exempted unit at the relevant point of time. ( 14 ) WITH regard to penal action Mr. Bandopadhyay fairly conceded that NPPA did not have any power to take penal action and threat contemplated in the said notice was of no consequence. He however clarified the position by saying that the said threat for penal action was to be considered as a recommendation by the said authority to the Central Government for taking punitive measures against the said unit in case satisfactory explanations were not given by the petitioner company. ( 15 ) IN this back drop two questions crop up for my consideration :- (I)was the petitioner company an exempted unit within the meaning of the Control Order of 1995 at the relevant period? (II)what is the effect of the belated declaration submitted by the petitioner company in the facts and circumstances of this case? ( 16 ) TO answer the aforesaid two questions relevant provisions of the Control Order of 1995 are to be given appropriate meaning and interpretation. Paragraphs 25, 26 and 27 are relevant herein and are quoted below :-"25. Power to exempt.- (1) Government may, having regard to the factors mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) and subject to such conditions as it may specify, by an Order in the Official Gazette, exempt any manufacturer from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this Order. Paragraphs 25, 26 and 27 are relevant herein and are quoted below :-"25. Power to exempt.- (1) Government may, having regard to the factors mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) and subject to such conditions as it may specify, by an Order in the Official Gazette, exempt any manufacturer from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this Order. (2) While granting exemption under sub-paragraph (1) the Government shall have regard to all or any of the following factors, - (a) number of workers employed; (b) amount of capital invested; (c) range/group and type of products manufactured; (d) sales turnover; (e) production of bulk drugs from basic stage by a process developed through indigenous research and development, and which is significantly different from known process and result in cost reduction; (f) production of a new drug which has not been produced elsewhere, if developed through indigenous research and development;26. Delegation of powers.- The Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that all or any of the powers conferred upon it by this Order, other than those contained in paragraphs 22, 23 and 25 shall subject to such restrictions, exceptions and conditions, as may be specified in the direction, be exercisable also by such Officer or authority as may be specified in the notification. 27. Repeal and saving.- (1) The Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1987 is hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken, including any notification or Order made, direction given, notice issued or exemption granted under the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1987, shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Order, be deemed to have been done, taken, made, given, issued or granted, as the case may be, under the corresponding provisions of this Order. " ( 17 ) UNDER paragraph 25 the Central Government had power to exempt an unit from operation of all or any of the provisions of the said Order by taking into consideration various factors mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) of the paragraph 25 of the said Order. ( 18 ) PARAGRAPH 26 had given power to the Central Government to delegate all or any of the powers except paragraphs 22, 23 and 25 thereof upon any officer or authority by a notification. ( 18 ) PARAGRAPH 26 had given power to the Central Government to delegate all or any of the powers except paragraphs 22, 23 and 25 thereof upon any officer or authority by a notification. ( 19 ) PARAGRAPH 27 is the repeal and saving clause by which earlier Control Order of 1987 was repealed and the acts done under the 1987 Control Order had been saved so long it was not inconsistent with the provisions of the Control Order, 1995. ( 20 ) AFTER the promulgation of the said 1995 Control Order Central Government issued a notification by exempting the SSI Units from operation of paragraph 8 of the said Control Order of 1995 subject to compliance of three conditions which included submission of declaration within 60 days from the issuance of the said notification. ( 21 ) BY a further notification the Central Government delegated its certain powers upon the said NPPA except paragraphs 22, 23 and 25. Hence, the power of exemption was retained by the Central Government. Since operation of paragraph 8 had been exempted by the Central Government in respect of small scale industrial units which complied with the three conditions stipulated in the said notification those units were deemed to have been exempted from operation of paragraph 8 of the said Control Order, 1995 and as such NPPA was not entitled to ask for any particulars from any SSI Unit by virtue of paragraph 8 of the said Control Order of 1995. ( 22 ) QUESTION now comes whether the petitioner company was entitled to carry on business as exempted unit by virtue of declaration submitted under the 1987 Control Order in view of the paragraph 27 (2) of the Control Order of 1995. In my view, if the 1995 Control Order was silent on that issue there was no inconsistency in the said 1995 Control Order in respect of any of the provisions of the earlier Control Order such actions taken under the earlier Control Order were saved by paragraph 27 (2 ). In the instant case appropriate notification was issued under paragraph 25 of the said Control Order of 1995 asking for declaration to be submitted within 60 days from the date of issuance of the said notification. In the instant case appropriate notification was issued under paragraph 25 of the said Control Order of 1995 asking for declaration to be submitted within 60 days from the date of issuance of the said notification. Such declaration was also asked for from the existing units under Control Order of 1987 as it would be ex-facie clear from the said notification itself which provided for submission of such declaration from the existing units as well as in respect of new units. Since the said notification had specifically provided for submission of declaration by the existing exempted units under the earlier Control Order, in my view, further declaration became necessary under the said notification dated March 2, 1995. ( 23 ) SINCE there was no declaration submitted within the time so stipulated and since there was no declaration at all on the date when the NPPA asked for particulars on May 13, 1998 the said authority was quite competent to ask for those particulars and the petitioner company was obliged to furnish those particulars. ( 24 ) NOW question comes as to whether the said belated declaration was valid in the facts and circumstances of this case. Neither the Control Order 1995 nor the notification dated March 2, 1995 provided for condonation of delay in submission of such declaration. More over, the declaration was submitted after three years of issuance of the said notification and after NPPA had asked for particulars from the petitioner company. Hence, in my view, the said declaration was of no consequence. ( 25 ) MR. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, made elaborate submissions on other issues including the inter corporate relationship of the petitioner company along with other group of companies. Such questions, in my view, are not necessary to be dealt with herein and as such I leave those questions open for the parties to agitate at the appropriate stage and before the appropriate forum if occasion so arises. ( 26 ) I, therefore, hold that the petitioner was not an exempted unit under the Control Order of 1995 and as such the NPPA was competent to ask for particulars as they had done in the instant case and the impugned notice was valid and subsisting to the extent where NPPA had asked for further particulars and explanation from the petitioner company. ( 27 ) ON the question of threat of penal action I hold that the NPPA did not have such power and such threat should be construed as a recommendation to the Central Government for taking any penal action against the petitioner company if they think it fit and proper. Writ petition is thus dismissed. There would be no Order as to costs. Interim Orders stands vacated. However, there would be a stay of operation of this judgment and Order for the period of two weeks from date. Urgent xerox certified copy would be given to the parties, if applied for. Petition dismissed.