Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 165 (TRI)

Bronkol Pvt. Limited v. State of Tripura

2014-05-06

DEEPAK GUPTA, S.TALAPATRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta; C.J.:- The Director of Health Services, Govt. of Tripura issued a Notice Inviting Tender from resourceful, experienced, reliable, bona fide, renowned, licensed manufacturer of medicines for supply of various medicines including Albendazole Oral Suspension USP 400 mg/10 ml., Co-trimoxazole Suspension IP 40 mg + 200 mg/5 ml, Furazolidone Oral Suspension IP 25 mg/5 ml., Metronidazole Benzoate Oral Suspension IP (200 mg/5 ml.), Povidone Iodine Soln. IP 5% w/v and Paracetamol Tab. IP 650 mg./tab. 2. The petitioner submitted his tender for those items. The tender of the petitioner was accepted and thereafter supply orders were placed upon the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he had a tie-up with one manufacturer, namely M/s. Ticoma Pharmacia who was to manufacture the medicines and the petitioner was to supply the same. 3. The petitioner supplied all documents to the State and after his tender was accepted various orders were placed upon him for supplying the medicines. It was also mentioned by means of those orders there should be an endorsement on the packing showing that it is for Govt. Supply and Not for Sale. 4. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the supply orders he got the items manufactured from the respondent No. 14 and thereafter sent it to the respondent-State. However, by an order dated 03.01.2014 the State had cancelled the supply orders of the petitioner company on the allegation that the manufacturer of the medicines had no license to manufacture the medicines in question. This was the only ground for cancellation of the supply orders. 5. From the materials on record, we find that the premises in which the medicines were being manufactured had been changed by the respondent No. 14 and, therefore, the Good Manufacturing Practices Certificate had changed from time to time. However, it is important to note that even before the tender was submitted the change in the premises had taken place and it is now not disputed that the Good Manufacturing Practices Certificate was issued. Therefore, the impugned order has to be quashed. 6. It is now pointed out by the State that in fact that the petitioner is not the manufacturer of the drugs and was therefore not eligible to make any supply. Therefore, the impugned order has to be quashed. 6. It is now pointed out by the State that in fact that the petitioner is not the manufacturer of the drugs and was therefore not eligible to make any supply. As far as the supply orders which were already been placed on him are concerned, once the petitioner has been put at a disadvantageous position and has made the supplies the supply orders shall not be cancelled. In the present case, the order of cancellation was passed without even issuing any notice to the petitioner. In case the supplies meet with all the specifications of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 the State cannot on this ground now refuse to accept the supplies. Therefore, the State must accept the supplies. 7. In case the State wants to cancel the tender then it must on any ground whatsoever issue notice to the petitioner and after giving it an opportunity to do so, after hearing the petitioner, pass an appropriate order and if the order is against the petitioner, he can take appropriate action open to him. 8. We are also passing this order because we have been informed that till date the medicines are lying at Agartala for the last four months and no fresh supplies have been received. This means that the poor citizens of Tripura are without any medicine. Therefore, those medicines may be accepted. 9. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.