LexINDIAN DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICAL LTD. versus FAMY CARE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 5 S.C.R. 646 INDIAN DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICAL L TQ. v. FAMY CARE & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3977 of 2010) APRIL 30, 2010 [V.S .. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA,. JJ.] Administrative law - Government policy - Purchase preference policy - Entry of medicines in the list - C Interpretation of - Invitation of tender for supply of Oral Contraceptive Pills by Government - Companies seeking tender enquiry documents - Meanwhile, Purchase Preference Policy for medicines exclusively from Pharma Central Public Sector Enterprises by Government - OCPs listed at serial no. o 51, as OCP (Mala D and Mala N) - Rate of contract of entire quantity of 275 lakh cycles of OCPs placed by Government on Pharma CPSEs - Challenge to - High Court quashing the rate of contract as regards the award of 175 /akhs cycles,, of other brands of OCPs apart from Mala D to the extent of E 25 /akh cycles - On appeal held: Order of High Court 'was justified - Entry in the bracket was not illustrative - Entry is specific and is to be restrictive to Mala D and Mala N - Ora/. Contraceptive Pills only of that brand were obviously included in the list - Tender - Family Welfare. F The respondent companies are engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of family planning products including Oral Contraceptive Pills (OCPs). The respondent no. 3-Union of India floated an open tender to procure the OCPs. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 requested G respondent No. 3 to .issue the tender inquiry documents. H Meanwhile, the appellant-IDPL pointed out to the respondent no. 3 that the Government had introduced a Purchase Preference Policy for 102 medicines exclusively from Pharma Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) 646 INDIAN DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICAL LTD. v. FAMY 647 CARE & ORS. and their subsidiaries and the OCPs were listed at serial A No. 51 of that list. Thereafter, respondent no. 3 issued ~ corrigendum to the tender notice for OCPs that the tender enquiry documents for OCPs would not be opened as promised. Respondent no. 3 then awarded the rate contract of the entire quantity of 275 lakh cycles of OCPs B to the appellant. Aggrieved, respondents filed writ petition that the award of the rate contract was in violation of the tender notice and was contrary to the Purchase Preference Policy. The High Court partly allowed the writ petition and quashed the rate of contract awarded to the C extent of 175 lakh cycles of other OCPs brands apart from Mala D to the extent of 25 lakh cycles. Hence the appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The customer would not be given Mala D D and Mala N legitimately if he goes to a medial shop and demands some other brand of Oral Contraceptive Pills. Even the price of Mala D and Mala N differs from the ottrer Oral Contraceptive Pills. The whole world knows and presumably the Union of India also knew what an Oral E Contraceptive .Pill is. The Union of India, therefore, in branding the particular entry at serial No. 51 could have simply stated Oral Contraceptive Pills. That would have been the end of the matter and that would have been the complete answer to the original writ petitioner's claim F before the High Court. However, if the list specifically mentions Mala D and Mala N, there was no question of jumping back and explaining that it was only an illustrative entry. [Para 14] [654-G-H; 655-A-B] 1.2. The whole list is scanned very carefully and no G such illustrations are found which would lead to some other meaning to the entry. Wherever an illustration is required, it has been specifically given. The explanations are also to be found in that list. The present entry is specific and tends to be restrictive to Mala D and Mala N. H 648 SUPREME COURT-REPORTS [2010] 5 S.C.R. A That is the true and correct meaning of entry at serial No.51. The High Court committed no mistake in giving the correct explanation of the entry. It cannot be said that the entry in the bracket was illustrative as there was no necessity to give any illustrations for the general and B commonly well understood words 'Oral Contraceptjve Pills'. Once a specific brand name was included, it was obvious that it would be only the Mala D and Mala N which would be covered under the entry. [Paras 15, 16 and 17) (655-C-H; 656-A-B] c 1.3. Where two views are possible, the view of the policy maker should be adopted. However, in the instant case, two vi_ews cannot be possi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.