Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
MODI-MUNDIPHARMA PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
For the Petitioner : Mr Dhruv Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr.N.S.Ahluwalia, Mr Salil Seth and Mr Hansdeep Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ms Ruchi Jain, Advocate for R-1.
Mr Kirtiman Singh and Mr Waize Ali Noor, Advocates for NPPA
CM No.46581/2016(exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
1. The petitioner impugns the notification, i.e. standing order No.1687(E) dated 09.05.2016 as also the letter of 05.07.2016 and the 2016:DHC:8067 order/letter dated 19.09.2016 rejecting the review application of the petitioner on the ground that the same has been filed after a period of thirty days of the publication of the Notification.
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had, immediately, on becoming aware of the notification, made a representation to the respondents and the respondents by impugned letter dated 05.07.2016, rejected the representation.
3. It is contended that it was thereafter that the petitioner filed the review application. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents, while issuing the impugned notification, have not categorized the different variants of the drugs of the petitioners and have not distinguished between the Sustained Release and the Controlled Release Dual Mechanism of the formulation. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner relies on the explanation to the Notification dated 10.03.2016 to contend that unless the variants were specified in the impugned notification, the notification would not be applicable to any formulation.
4. It is contended that the petitioner had taken recourse to filing a representation as there was an error apparent in the impugned notification and the review application was filed on the rejection of the representation.
5. It is contended that the review application has been rejected solely on the ground that the same has been filed after the period of thirty days. It is contended that in terms of the Drug Price Control Order, 2013, the petitioner has to follow the direction to fix the price as per the notification, which the petitioner has already done, grave prejudice is being caused to the petitioner.
6. The petitioner contends that as per it there is an error apparent in the notification and the petitioner had made a representation to the concerned authorities, which was disposed of on 05.07.2016 and immediately thereafter the review has been filed.
7. Without going into the merits of the contentions of either party, in light of the above, I am of the view that there is sufficient explanation for the petitioner not filing the review petition within time.
8. In view of the above, the rejection of the review petition solely on the ground of limitation cannot be sustained.
9. The Review Petition is restored and the matter is remitted to the appropriate authority to consider the Review Petition in accordance with law. The petitioner shall also be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. The appropriate authority shall dispose of the Review Petition within a period of four weeks.
10. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the contention of either party on merits and the competent authority may consider the Review Petition in accordance with law, without being influenced by anything stated in this order.
11. The writ petition is disposed of, in the above terms.
12. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J DECEMBER 19, 2016 ‘Sn’