Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, CJ., VINAY SARAF, J.
M/S Jpee Drugs – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 31343 of 2024
Decided On : 27-10-2025
(1) Tender -- blacklisting -- show cause notice to blacklist petitioner firm issued immediately after receipt of first report from laboratory -- no second sample drawn and sent to other laboratory -- Cl. 6 of Annexure IX makes it mandatory for employer to draw second sample and send it to other laboratory for quality test -- seven days’ time was granted to petitioner to reply to notice -- petitioner submitted reply after 5 pm on seventh day but before receipt of reply, orders were passed to blacklist petitioner firm and its supplied products -- orders passed in violation of principles of natural justice -- by not sending second sample to other laboratory, respondents violated terms of contract -- order of blacklisting cannot be given seal of approval -- however, supplied medicines were found to be substandard -- contention of petitioner that medicines were found substandard only due to improper storage conditions, not acceptable -- medicines were tested within period of their shelf-life -- petition disposed with direction to send fresh samples of each batch of supplied medicines for analysis and quality test to other laboratory. 2025 INSC 236 and 2024 INSC 589 referred to. [Paras 11 & 14]
(2) Tender -- blacklisting -- blacklisting bidder or debarring him from participating in further tenders has serious civil consequences for his business -- such order is also punitive or stigmatic -- person excluded from participating in tenders floated by government agency may also be disqualified from participating in tenders floated by other authorities or government bodies/agencies -- It is, thus, necessary that such punitive measure should not be taken mechanically -- procedure prescribed in tender document should be followed strictly. [Para 12]
(3) Tender -- blacklisting -- effect -- blacklisting has effect of denying person or entity the privileged opportunity of entering into government contracts -- every eligible person is to be afforded equal opportunity to participate in contracts, without arbitrariness and discrimination -- this is the fundamental right of every citizen guaranteed under Art. 14 of Constitution -- blacklisting not only takes away this privilege, it also tarnishes blacklisted person's reputation and brings his character into question -- blacklisting has long-lasting civil consequences for future business prospects of blacklisted person. (2014) 9 SCC 105 followed. [Para 13]
¼1½ fufonk & dkyh lwph esa Mkyuk & ç;ksx'kkyk ls çFke fjiksVZ dh çkfIr ds rqjar i'pkr~ ;kph QeZ dks dkyh lwph esa Mkyus dh dkj.k crkvks lwpuk tkjh dh xbZ & f}rh; uewuk fudky dj vU; ç;ksx'kkyk çsf"kr ugha fd;k x;k & mikca/k 9 ds [kaM 6 esa fu;kstd }kjk f}rh; uewuk fudkydj xq.koÙkk ijh{k.k ds fy, vU; ç;ksx'kkyk dks çsf"kr fd;k tkuk vkKkid fd;k x;k gS & ;kph dks lwpuk dk mÙkj nsus ds fy, lkr fnol dk le; fn;k x;k Fkk & ;kph us lkrosa fnu vijkg~u 5 cts ds i'pkr~ mÙkj is'k fd;k ijarq mÙkj çkIr gksus iwoZ] ;kph QeZ vkSj mlds }kjk çnk; fd, x, mRiknksa dks dkyh lwph esa Mkyus ds vkns'k ikfjr dj fn, x, & vkns'k uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl}karksa dk vfrØe.k dj ikfjr fd, x, & f}rh; uewuk vU; ç;ksx'kkyk dks çsf"kr ugha dj çR;FkhZx.k us lafonk ds fucaèkuksa dk vfrØe.k fd;k & dkyh lwph esa Mkyus ds vkns'k ij vuqeksnu dh eqgj ugha yxkbZ tk ldrh & rFkkfi] çnk; dh xbZ vkS"k/k voekud ikbZ xbZ Fkha & ;kph dk ;g ladFku Lohdk;Z ugha fd vuqfpr HkaMkj.k fLFkfr ds dkj.k gh vkS"kèk voekud ikbZ xbZa & vkS"k/kksa dk ijh{k.k muds HkaMkj.k dh vof/k ds Hkhrj fd;k x;k Fkk & çnk; dh xbZ vkS"k/kksa ds çR;sd [ksi ls u, fljs ls fy, x, uewus fo'ys"k.k vkSj xq.koÙkk ijh{k.k ds fy, vU; ç;ksx'kkyk çsf"kr djus ds funs'k ds lkFk ;kfpdk dk fuiVkjk fd;k x;kA 2025 vkb,u,llh 236 rFkk 2024 vkb,u,llh 589 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 11 ,oa 14½
¼2½ fufonk & dkyh lwph esa Mkyuk & cksyh yxkus okys dks dkyh lwph esa Mkyus ds vFkok mls vkxs fdlh fufonk esa Hkkx ysus ls fooftZr djus ds mlds dkjckj ds fy, xaHkhj flfoy ifj.kke gksrs gSa & ,slk vkns'k naMkRed ;k dyaddkjh Hkh gksrk gS & fdlh ljdkjh vfHkdj.k }kjk ykbZ xbZ fufonkvksa esa Hkkx ysus ls vioftZr O;fä vU; çkf/kdj.kksa ;k ljdkjh fudk;ksa@vfHkdj.kksa }kjk ykbZ xbZ fufonkvksa esa Hkh Hkkx ysus ls fujgZ gks ldrk gS & vr% vko';d gS fd ,slk naMkRed mik; ;a=or~ ugha fd;k tk, & fufonk nLrkost esa fofgr çfØ;k dk vfrfu;efu"Bk ls ikyu fd;k tkuk pkfg,A ¼iSjk 12½
¼3½ fufonk & dkyh lwph esa Mkyuk & çHkko & dkyh lwph esa Mkyus dk çHkko O;fä ;k bdkbZ dks ljdkjh lafonkvksa esa vkus ds xkSjokfUor djus okys volj ls oafpr djus dk gksrk gS & çR;sd ik= O;fä dks] euekuh vkSj HksnHkko ds fcuk] lafonkvksa esa Hkkx ysus dk leku volj fn;k tkuk gksrk gS & ;g çR;sd ukxfjd dk lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 14 ds v/khu çR;kHkwr ewy vf/kdkj gS & dkyh lwph esa Mkyus ls ;g xkSjo gh ugha fNu tkrk] vfirq blls dkyh lwph esa Mkys x, O;fä dh [;kfr Hkh efyu gksrh gS vkSj mlds pfj= ij ç'ufpUg yx tkrs gSa & dkyh lwph esa Mkyus ds] dkyh lwph esa Mkys x, O;fä dh Hkkoh dkjksckjh laHkkoukvksa ij nh?kZdkyhu flfoy ifj.kke gksrs gSaA ¼2014½ 9 ,llhlh 105 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 13½
Order :
Vinay Saraf, J.
1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner firm which is engaged in the business of the manufacturing and supplying of the medicines to the government hospitals.
2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner firm participated in NIT issued for supply of drugs to various government district hospitals in the State of Madhya Pradesh by Department of Public Health & Family Welfare through M.P. Public Health Services Corporation Limited, Bhopal. Petitioner's bid was accepted for supply of drug Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C) Tab IP 500 mg (tablet) and Ethambutol 400 mg (tablet). Petitioner entered into an agreement for supply of the drugs as per the tender document and thereafter the petitioner supplied Ascorbic Acid (Batch No. JDT-8007) in the month of April and Ethambutol 400 mg (Batch No. JDT-8054) in May to various government hospitalsin the State of Madhya Pradesh. Later on Ascorbic Acid (Batch no. JDT – 8316 and JDT – 7741) were also supplied by the petitioner.
3. A show cause notice dated 23.09.2024 was issued to the petitioner firm seeking explanation that why the petitioner firm be not blacklisted on the ground that drugs supplied by the petitioner firm were failed in quality test. Along with the show cause notice, test report was also forwarded to petitioner firm. As per the show cause notice, Ascorbic Acid supplied by the petitioner firm (Batch No. JDT- 8007, JDT- 8316, JDT-7741) was found substandard as well as Ethambutol(Batch No. JDT-8054) was also failed in quality test. It is mentioned in the show cause notice that as per the tender document, in case any batch is found NSQ (not of standard quality) then particular product of the supplier will be blacklisted/debarred for not less than two years. Upon blacklisting/debarment of such three NSQ batches of one or more products under a tender, the supplier will be blacklisted for not less than three years. The petitioner firm replied the show cause notice on 30.09.2024 after 05 PM and denied the allegation of supply of substandard drug and stated that due to improper storage condition and improper handling of the drugs, drugs failed in the quality test for which the manufacturer and supplier cannot be held responsible. Hence, there was no fault on the part of the petitioner.
4. Managing Director, M.P. Public Health Services Corporation Limited, Bhopal after observing that no reply to show cause notice dated 23.09.2024 was filed by the petitioner firm within 7 days, passed two separate orders on 30.09.2024 by which the petitioner firm was directed to refund the value of the entire supplied material, which was found substandard and the petitioner firm was blacklisted for a period of three years from participating in any NIT issued by MPPHSCL. Thereafter by order dated 01.10.2024 reply/representation submitted by the petitioner firm on 30.09.2024 was considered and rejected. Hence the present petition has been filed.
5. Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents have not followed the proper procedure before passing the order of blacklisting and the orders passed on 30.09.2024 are ex facie arbitrary, illegal, malafide and in violation of principle of natural justice. He further submits that notice was issued to the petitioner on 23.09.2024 and seven days' time was granted to the petitioner to file the reply. Petitioner filed the reply on 30.09.2024, but without waiting for the reply of the petitioner in a hasty manner, the impugned orders were passed on 30.09.2024, by which petitioner firm was blacklisted for three years and products of the petitioner firm namely; Ascorbic Acid (Tab.) and Ethambutol (Tab.) were blacklisted for two years. He submits that no opportunity of the hearing was granted to the petitioner firm. The samples which were drawn by the respondent and examined by the laboratory, were not forwarded to the another laboratory for obtaining second opinion and until and unless the seco
The principles of natural justice require that a party be given a fair opportunity to defend itself against allegations made against it. This includes the right to receive a copy of the evidence agai....
The impugned order violated principles of natural justice and tender conditions, leading to its setting aside by the court.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of fair play, natural justice, non-discrimination, equality, reasonableness, and proportionality in the process of blacklisting, and the need for a valid, parti....
Important points:Supply of Clobazam Tab 5 mg. not satisfying IP specification by the petitioner is an exceptional case which requires a lenient approach. The appellate authority was of the view that ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
