Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat

1. The petitioner challenges the legality of two orders dated 20.4.1998 and 01.11.2002 by the first respondent. It also seeks a direction to disclose to it complete and detailed cost data with all relevant break ups and particulars relating to price fixation made on 07.08.1996 and consider and dispose of its application for review in accordance with law after granting it suitable opportunity of hearing.

2. The facts are briefly set out hereafter that the petitioner at the relevant time was manufacturing “Raricap” iron tablets. The product was originally manufactured by one M/s. Ethnor Ltd. It is contended that the said M/s. Ethnor Ltd. had on 24.11.1989, applied to the Central Government, for price approval of the Tablet at Rs. 25.01 per pack. Sometime in 1994, M/s Ethnor Ltd apparently was merged or taken over by the petitioner, which continued to market the product. On 07.08.1996, exercising powers under Para 8 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 (hereafter called “DPCO-95”) the Central Government revised the price of Raricap Tablets, for a pack of 40 and fixed the cost at Rs. 16.24. 3. The petitioner by its letter dated 19.8.1996, claimed that the price was approved at Rs. 25.01 in 1989 under the then existing Control Order i.e. DPCO-87. It claimed that the price of the tablet continued to remain unchanged and even as on date i.e. 19.8.1996 the price at which it was sold was as per the price earlier approved by the Central Government. The petitioner sought for cost data and other material to enable it to prefer a review to the Central Government under Para 22 of the DPCO-95. This letter was followed up with subsequent letters and telegrams dated 24.9.1996, 08.10.1996, 31.10.1996 and 21.11.1996. The petitioner also contended that the input costs, for the product, had not decreased.

4. On 06.12.1996, the Central Government alleged that the petitioner was over charging and selling the product i.e. Raricap Tablets at prices exceeding the cost fixed. It accordingly directed the petitioner to sell the product at the said cost i.e. Rs. 16.24, per pack. The petitioner replied on 16.12.1996, again seeking for details and particulars to enable a meaningful review. On 17.10.1997, the Central Government addressed a letter to the petitioner. The same is in the following terms: “ “No. 9(14)/96-PI(II) Government of India Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals Shastri Bhawan New Delhi, the 17-10-97 To, M/s. Johnson and Johnson Ltd. 30, Forjett Street P.O. Box No. 9301 Bombay “ 400036 Subject: Price fixation of Raricaps Tablets 40s and Respren Tablets Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter dated July 30, 1997 on the above mentioned subject and to forward herewith the break-up details for working out the price of Raricaps Tablets as under:- Rs. Material costs 4.98 C.C. 0.68 P.M. 1.41 P.C. 0.40 Cost of Production 7.20 MAPE 7.20 Price Worked out

14.40 E.D. 1.84 Final Price worked out 16.24 In this context it is mentioned that the price for the above formulation was fixed on 7.8.95 and it is more than a year that you have not submitted the price list in form V as required under DPCO, 95. You are advised to follow the price already fixed failing which you will be flouting the provisions of DPCO, 95 and will, therefore be liable for prosecution under DPCO, 95. Yours faithfully, sd/- (J.S. SIDHU) Desk Officer”

5. The petitioner replied on 29.10.1997, stating that further particulars were necessary since the Central Government had based its costing on the material cost at Rs.4.98, Conversion Cost at Rs. 0.68, Packing material at Rs. 1.41 and Packaging Cost at Rs. 0.40. The petitioner claims that actual material cost, packing material cost were substantially higher and also that conversion and packing costs, fixed in accordance with notional norms were not tenable, as the actual cost incurred was considerably higher. It claimed that the DPCO required consideration of ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document