LexMIS. HINDUSTAN ANTIBIOTICS LTD. ETC. versus MIS. PARENTERAL DRUGS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
... MIS. HINDUSTAN ANTIBIOTICS LTD. ETC. A v. MIS. PARENTERAL DRUGS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ETC. NOVEMBER 22, 2000 [U.C. BANERJEE AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] B Constitution of India, I Y50 Arlie/es 226 and 299-High Court Power lo issue appropriale directions relaling to social problems though /is be/ween parties may not C warrant such conclusion-Writ petition before High Court al/eging arbitrmy aclion in matter of award of co/1/ract for purchase of drugs from Government Undertakings-High Co>1rt noticing that Government Undertaking appeared 10 have supplied I. V. Fluids containing fungus and Government officials sweared false affidavits-Issuance of notices to officials filing false affidavits D and directions to State Government to prosecute persons responsible for supplying sub-standard I. V. Fluids--Judgment of High Court challenged contending that High Court transgressed its limits in the matter of exercise ofjurisdiction-Held, though the directions are total~v unwarranted and judicial dynamism has also its limits to warra/1/ exercise of jurisdiction, but since the law courts have a social duty, issuance of appropriate directions E for an inquiry would not be who//y zmwarranted-However, the State did not take any steps prior to obtaining stay, and by reason of long lapse of time appeal has become infructuous. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3925 of 1990. From the Judgment and Order dated 5.4.90 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. P. No. 1012 of 1989. WITH Civil Appeal No. 3926 of 1990. A.K. Ganguli, A. Mariarputham, Aruna Mathur, Anurag D. Mathur. Sakesh Kumar, S.K. Agnihotri and R.P. Wadhwani for the appearing parties. The following Order of the Court was delivered : 19 F G H 20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A:< Civil Appeal No. 392511990. The appellant - Mis. Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd., a Government of India Undertaking, is in appeal against the impugned judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the principal grievance being a direction to the State Government to launch prosecution against the officers of the appellant-company for supplying sub-standard I.V. Fluids. B There exists no manner of doubt that (. V. Fluids being a life saving drug need to contain the specification and any foreign element found therein ought to be taken note of rather seriously and as such at the first blush this court was of the view that no interference ought to be had, though Mr. Ganguli contended that the High Court has, in fact, transgressed its limits in the matter of exercise of jurisdiction and it is on this score further that the Court was invited to go C into the matter in some greater detail. Mr. Ganguli contended that as a matter of fact and admittedly the core question that fell for consideration before the High Court was whether Government possesses absolute discretion to confer any benefit on any one or should that be regulated by some norms'. Mr. Ganguli contended that D question of sub-standard goods did not fall for consideration before the High Court; neicher the High Court was otherwise within its jurisdiction to express any opinion in regard thereto. The opinion so expressed cannot, thus, Mr. Ganguli contended, but be termed to be obiter. Mr. Ganguli further contended that in any event the direction as contained in the judgment under E appeal, cannot be termed to be otherwise in accordance with the norms and principles of law and there is existing a definite violation of the principles of natural justice since no notice was issued neither any explanation was asked for and without any even submission being made in regard thereto, an order has been passed by the High Court condemning the supplies of the government undertaking. F From a perusal of the judgment we find some credence to Mr. Ganguli's submission since the judgment itself records the admitted set of facts to the effect that Mis. Parenteral Drugs (India) P. Ltd. being the writ petitioner is regular manufacturer of drugs and the respondent Nos. I to 3 purchased G drugs, medicines and other items alike materials including intravenous fluids for consumption in various hospitals in the State. The State Government, however, in order to afford protection to small scale industries in the State issued a Circular dated 9. I I .1976 granting 10% price preference to small scale industries in the State. The policy of the Government as depicted therein in the ma
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.