JUDGMENT

M.M. Das, J.— The petitioner in this Writ Application prays for quashing the order dated 9.12.2004 under Annexure-6 to the Writ Application by which the Director, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, Orissa, Cuttack, black-listed the petitioner’s firm namely, M/s. Brite Traders and debarred it from participating in future tender issued by the said Directorate.

2.The petitioner claims to be an authorized supplier of drugs for Alembic Live Stock and Poultry range of products for the State of Orissa. In support of this contention, the petitioner has annexed the letter issued by the General Manager, Marketing (Vet.) of the said company addressed to the Opp. Party. It is revealed from the facts of the case that a tender notice inviting offer from authorized dealers for supply of veterinary medicine dated 7.11.2001 was issued by the Opp. Party for supply of veterinary drugs. The petitioner made an offer for supply of such drugs and the said offer was accepted. The petitioner supplied amongst other, the drug called “COTRIMAL BOLUS” of seven different batches including batch No. V-2006, on different dates, for the financial year, 2001-2002. The petitioner claims to have purchased the said drugs from M/s. Essar Agencies, a consignee agent of M/s. Alembic Limited, Baroada. The petitioner received a show cause notice from Opp. Party, calling upon him to show cause as to why the total cost of the drug “Cotrimal Bolus” of batch No. V-2006 amounting to Rs. 52,630/- including taxes shall not be recovered from his pending bills and his earnest money and security deposit should not be forfeited and also as to why suitable action shall not be taken against him to declare his firm black-listed. The said show cause notice has been annexed to the Writ Application as Annexure-4. The petitioner showed cause to the said notice under Annexure-5. After considering the said cause shown by the petitioner, the impugned order under Annexure-6 was passed on 9.12.2004. Prior to passing of the said order, it appears that the Opp. Party issued a letter under Annexure-7 to the petitioner’s firm calling upon him to furnish authenticated documents to show as to when Late Sudarsan Kumar Sharma, whose name appears as the competent person in the drug licence of the petitioner, expired. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said letter under Annexure-8.

3.Mr. A. K. Rath, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was granted with drug licences in form Nos. 20-A, 20-B, 20-G, (21-A &

21-B) as prescribed under the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945 (for short, “the Rules”) (as amended from time to time). The said licences, according to the petitioner, were valid on the date when the supply of the drug in question was made. He further submitted that in view of the ‘no conviction certificate’ dated 16.12.2003 granted by the Drugs Controller, Orissa, who is the licensing authority, certifying that the petitioner has never been prosecuted and found guilty under any of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 (for short, ‘the Act’), there was absolutely no reason on the part of the Opp. Party to black list the petitioner’s firm.

4.A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Opp. Party indicating that the petitioner submitted the drug licence along his offer pursuant to the tender call notice for supply of drugs. The said offer of the petitioner has been annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexure-A. It has been further averred in the counter affidavit that during a surprise check by the Drugs Inspector, Cuttack, Range-3, the said Inspector collected samples of “Cotrimal bolus” of batch No. V-2006 which was supplied by the petitioner to the Opp. Party and sent the same for chemical analysis. On such analysis, it was found that the said drug is a sub-standard one and accordingly, a report was submitted to the Opp. Party by the Drugs Inspector. In the meanwhile, there was a news item published in the daily. “The Samaja” dated 1