Point of Law : Court would not issue a writ that would interfere with a private contract between two private entities. It is for the petitioner/Hospital to avail all such remedy, as is available in law seeking recovery of money. [Para 21]

ORDER :

1. The petitioner-M/s. United Brothers Healthcare Services Private Limited through its unit M/s United Hospital (‘the Hospital’ for short) is before this Court seeking to quash supply agreement dated 02-07-2021, revised letter of consent dated 13-12-2021 and also recovery of money from the hands of the 4th respondent -M/s. Bharat Biotech International Limited (‘the Company’ for short). Therefore, the issue in the lis is concerning a private contract between the two private entities.

2. Facts adumbrated are as follows:-

The petitioner/Hospital claims to be a state-of-the-art 50 bedded super speciality hospital in the south of Bangalore and also claims to have in-depth expertise in advanced medical and surgical interventions. It is further averred that the Hospital is engaged in procurement, storage and administering COVID-19 vaccines to people on non-commercial terms. It need not be elaborated in any great detail as it is in public domain that the entire globe was engulfed with pandemic COVID-19.

3. The National Institute of Virology, the Institute which is under the control of the 2nd respondent/Indian Council of Medical Research succeeds in isolating the viral strain of COVID-19 for vaccine development in March 2020. Later, the know-how was transmitted to the 4th respondent/Company for production and distribution of vaccine in the name of “Covaxin”. It is averred that Government of India through the Department of Biotechnology transferred Rs.200/-crores to the 4th respondent owing to shortfall of supplies across the nation. It is, therefore, contended that Covaxin was developed under public private partnership through a formal Memorandum of Understanding between the 2nd respondent and the 4th respondent. The issue is not with regard to the agreement or the Memorandum of Understanding between the 2nd respondent/ICMR and the 4th respondent/Company.

4. The 4th respondent enters into an agreement/supply agreement for supply of 25,000 doses (2,500 vials) of Covaxin with the petitioner/Hospital and the entire invoice amount of Rs.2,62,50,000/-was agreed to be paid in advance which the petitioner/Hospital contends that it had raised a finance from HDFC Bank for the said purpose. Pursuant to the agreement entered into between the Hospital and the Company, the petitioner/Hospital also undertook certain advertisements for distribution of Covaxin, which the petitioner/Hospital claims to have costed Rs.30/-lakhs. From 17-09-2021 onwards, it is contended, that the petitioner/Hospital communicated several e-mails and made innumerable phone calls to the 4th respondent expressing its helplessness in pushing Covaxin to general public owing to negative publicity around it and inability of the 4th respondent to obtain necessary approvals from the World Health Organization which comes about only in the month of November 2021.

5. The petitioner/Hospital claims to have requested the 4th respondent to take back the remaining doses of Covaxin that was lying with the petitioner/Hospital and compensate the petitioner/ Hospital for the same or replace the doses with fresh sets that will have a longer shelf life or to facilitate transfer of doses at the invoiced amount to other hospitals where there was a demand for Covaxin. The 4th respondent replies to the said communications either electronically or otherwise on 29-09-2021 that 15,000 doses of Covaxin were due to expire by November 2021 and the petitioner himself could transfer Covaxins to other Hospitals. In this manner correspondences galore between the Hospital and the Company and finally, on 23-11-2021, the petitioner/Hospital claims that the 4th respondent back tracked the earlier offer and refused to process any refund relying on the terms of the supply agreement. Therefore, the entire stock of vaccines given to the petitioner/Hospital by the 4th respondent was set to expire and no steps were taken by the 4th respondent to either compensate the petitioner/Hospital or to take back the vacc