M. M. DAS, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this writ application prays for quashing the order dated 9-12-2004 under Annexure-6 to the writ application by which the Director, animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, orissa, Cuttack, black-listed the petitioner's firm namely, M/s. Brite Traders and debarred it from participating future tender issued by the said Directorate. ( 2 ) THE petitioner claims to be an authorized supplier of drugs for Alembic Live Stock and Poultry range of products for the State of Orissa. In support of this contention, the petitioner has annexed the letter issued by the General Manager, Marketing (Ve?) of the said company addressed to the opp. party. It is revealed from the fact of the case that a tender notice inviting offer from authorized dealers for supply of veterinary medicine dated 7-11-200l was issued by the opp. party for supply of veterinary drugs. The petitioner made an offer for supply of such drugs and the said offer was accepted. The petitioner supplied amongst other, the drug called COTRIMAL BOLUS" of seven different batches including batch No. V-2006, on different dates, for the financial year, 2001-2002. The- petitioner claims to have purchased the said drugs from M/s. Essar agencies, a consignee agent of M/s Alembic limited, Baroda. The petitioner received a show cause notice from opp. party, calling upon him to show cause as to why the total cost of the drug "cotrimal Bolus" of batch No. V-2006 amounting to Rupees 52,630/r including taxes shall not be recovered from his pending' bills and his earnest money and security deposit should not be forfeited and also as to why suitable action shall not be taken against him to declare his firm black-listed. The said show cause notice has been annexed to the writ application as Annexure-4. The petitioner showed cause to the said notice under Annexure-5. After considering the said cause shown by the petitioner, the impugned order under annexure 6 was passed in 9-12-2004. Prior to passing of the said order, it appears that the opp. party issued a letter under Annexure-7 to the petitioner's firm calling upon him to furnish authenticated documents to show as to when late Sudarsan Kumar sharma, whose name appears as the competent person in the drug licence of the petitioner, expired. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said letter under Annexure-8. ( 3 ) MR. party issued a letter under Annexure-7 to the petitioner's firm calling upon him to furnish authenticated documents to show as to when late Sudarsan Kumar sharma, whose name appears as the competent person in the drug licence of the petitioner, expired. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said letter under Annexure-8. ( 3 ) MR. A. K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was granted with drug licences in form Nos. 20-A, 20-B, 20-G, 21-A and 21-B as prescribed under the Drugs and Cosmetics rules, 1945 (for short, "the Rules") (as amended from time to time ). The said licences, according to the petitioner, were valid on the date when the supply of the drug in question was made. He further submitted that in view of the 'no conviction certificate' dated 16-12-2003 granted by the Drugs controller, Orissa, who is the licensing authority, certifying that the petitioner has never been prosecuted and found guilty under any of the provisions of the Drugs and cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, 'the Act'), there was absolutely no reason on the part of the opp. party to black-list the petitioner's firm. ( 4 ) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opp. party indicating that the petitioner submitted the drug licence along his offer pursuant to the tender call notice for supply of drugs. The said offer of the petitioner has been annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexure-A. It has been further averred in the counter affidavit that during a surprise check by the Drugs Inspector, cuttack, Range-3, the said Inspector collected samples of "cotrimal bolus" of batch no. V-2006 which was supplied by the petitioner to the opp. party and sent the same for chemical analysis. On such analysis, it was found that the said drug is a sub-standard one and accordingly, a report was submitted to the opp. party by the Drugs Inspector. In the meanwhile, there was a news item published in the daily, "the Samaja" dated 17-4-2004 that the competent person named in the licence of the petitioner has expired since 10-5-2001 and, therefore, in the absence of any valid drug licence, the petitioner supplied the medicine to the opp. party. On examination, the opp. party found that the petitioner has not reported about the death of the said competent person, namely, Sudarsan Kumar Sharma, to the licensing authority. The opp. party. On examination, the opp. party found that the petitioner has not reported about the death of the said competent person, namely, Sudarsan Kumar Sharma, to the licensing authority. The opp. party, thus, came to the conclusion that terms and conditions of the tender notice in Clause 10 (b) (ix) were violated for which the case of the petitioner was viewed seriously. ( 5 ) MR. K. C. Kar, learned Addl. Standing counsel submitted that the petitioner having submitted the drug licence which was granted in favour of his firm M/s. Brite Trad ers, which was not valid on the date of supply of drugs since the 'competent person' named therein was already dead and sample taken from one of the batches of the drug "cotrimal Bolus", namely, batch No. V-2006, was found to be sub-standard by the Drugs inspector, as such, no illegality has been committed in black-listing the petitioner's firm. The, relevant portion of the impugned order dated 9-12-2004 under Annexure-6 to the writ application is quoted herein below :"on perusal of the facts stated above, it is now ascertained that the Proprietor M/s. Brite Traders has carried on supply of medicines on the strength of the drug licence issued in the name of a dead person for the period 11 -5-01 to 31-12-02 Even, he has not also disclosed to this Directorate and to the Drugs Controller of Orissa as regards death of the competent person Sri Sudarsan kumar Sharma, although he has filed his tender documents for the year 2002-03 on 30-10-02. Sri Sharma has kept this Directorate and Drugs Controller Orissa in dark ness by non-disclosure of the death information of the competent persons to whom the drug licence had been issued and by way of such act, he has not only violated the terms and conditions of the Drugs Control act but also the rules and regulations of government as regards submission of tender documents and supply of medicines to Government offices has been violated. Further, it is found that the drug Cotrimal Bolus B. No. V-2006, supplied by M/s. Brite Traders, cuttack vide invoice No. BT-16/02-03, bt-17/02-03, BT-18/02-03, BT-19/02-03 dtd. 3-6-02 and BT-21/02-03 dt. 7-6-02, bt-34/02-03 dt. 7-11-02 and to A. D. R. I. , phulnakhara, vide Invoice No. BT-23/02-03 dt. 7-6-02 have been declared not of standard quality by the Drugs Inspector, cuttack-III Range, Cuttack in his letter No. 1146/di-III CTC, dt. 3-6-02 and BT-21/02-03 dt. 7-6-02, bt-34/02-03 dt. 7-11-02 and to A. D. R. I. , phulnakhara, vide Invoice No. BT-23/02-03 dt. 7-6-02 have been declared not of standard quality by the Drugs Inspector, cuttack-III Range, Cuttack in his letter No. 1146/di-III CTC, dt. 29-11-03. The reply to the Show Cause Notice issued in this Directorate letter No. 17265/ vet. dt. 26-5-2004 submitted by M/s. Brite traders in his letter No. BT/162/04-05, dt. 27-5-04 is not satisfactory and hence unacceptable. Hence, for such illegal and unwarranted act and bad trade practice, M/s, Brite Traders, jachak Lane, Cuttack is declared blacklisted and is debarred from participation in future Tenders relating to this Directorate. " ( 6 ) A reading of the above portion of the order goes to show that the reasons for black-listing the petitioner's firm are (i) the petitioner has not disclosed regardlng the death of the 'competent person', namely, sudafsan Kumar Sharma either to the opp. party or to the Drugs Controller, Orissa. Thus, he has violated the terms and conditions of the Act and the Rules and (ii) a sample, taken from the drug "cotrimal Bolus" supplied by the petitioner's firm was found to be sub-standard on analysis by the drugs Inspector. ( 7 ) IT appears from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit that the petitioner submitted the drug licence along with the tender papers which was granted to him in Form 21-C. Form 21-C under the Rules is a Form in which a Certificate of renewal of licence to sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute drugs, is issued. The said licence as submitted by the petitioner, which appears at page 64 of the brief, shows that ,the licence in favour of the petitioner's firm was renewed from 1-1-2001 to 31-12-2002. the same appears to have been submitted by the petitioner along with the tender papers on 13-11-2001. Though, in Column 3 of Form 21-C it is required to mention the name (s) of qualified person (s) in-charge but neither in the Act nor in the Rules the term "qualified person" has been defined. The form of the licences under Form Ns. 20, 20-A, 20-B, 20-G, 21-A and 21-B which were granted by the licensing; authority in favour, of the petitioner's firm does not require to mention the name of any such "qualified person". The form of the licences under Form Ns. 20, 20-A, 20-B, 20-G, 21-A and 21-B which were granted by the licensing; authority in favour, of the petitioner's firm does not require to mention the name of any such "qualified person". In the charging section under the Act also non-reporting of the death of such "qualified person" whose name appears in form 21-C by which licenses are renewed, does riot amount to any offence. We, therefore, find that the allegation against the petitioner for not informing either the opp. party or the Drugs Inspector (licensing authority) regarding the death of the "qualified person" cannot be a reason for blacklisting the petitioner's firm. ( 8 ) WITH regard to the sub-standard nature of one of the batches of the drug, namely, "cotrimal Bolus", we find that Section 18 (a) (i) of the Act prohibits sale of any drug which is not of a standard quality or is mis-branded, adulterated or spurious. The other provisions under the said chapter of the Act prescribes the procedures to be followed for analysis of the standard of a drug and Section 27 thereof, prescribes that any person found to be manufacturing for sale or for distribution or selling or has stocked or exhibited or distributes any drug not of standard, quality shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than five years which may extend-for a term of life and with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand. ( 9 ) FROM the facts of the case, it appears that even though it is the case of the opp. party that the Drug Inspector, Cuttack, range-3 collected samples of the drug, "cotrimal Bolus" of batch No V-2006 and found on analysis that the same is not of the prescribed standard but it is strange that no prosecution has been lodged against the petitioner's firm or the petitioner, as the case may be, for an offence under Section 27 of the Act We also find that neither the report of the analyst has been supplied to the petitioner nor has any opportunity been given to him to defend himself against such allegation. We are, therefore of the view that the opp. We are, therefore of the view that the opp. party could not have concluded that one batch of the above drugs supplied by the petitioner was below the prescribed standard without any steps being taken to lodge a prosecution against the petitioner. ( 10 ) ON the above premises, we are of the view that the order dated 9-12-2004 (Annexure-6)impugned in this writ application, black-listing the petitioner and debarring him from participating in future tenders relating to the Directorate of Animal husbandry and Veterinary Services, orissa, cannot be sustained. We accordingly quash the order dated 9-12-2004 of the opp. party under Annexure-6 and allow the writ application. I agree. Application allowed. .