The court emphasizes the necessity of procedural fairness, specifically the requirement to provide an adequate opportunity of hearing before issuing demand notices for overcharged amounts when the factual basis regarding manufacturing dates relative to price notifications is contested.

O R D E R

1. The grievance raised by the petitioner in all the writ petitions is that the manufacturing of the drug was prior to issuance of ceiling price notification by National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (‘NPPA’).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has presented following brief note of facts to explain the aforesaid position:

“BRIEF NOTE ON FACTS”

3. As per the respondent, the amount mentioned in the demand notice against each of the petitioner is as under:

4. During the course of hearing, the respondent submits that under almost similar circumstances, vide order dated 15.10.2025, the Court has entertained the writ petition and had directed that no precipitative steps shall be taken against the petitioner therein, subject to depositing with the respondent the overcharged amount, as involved therein.

5. In view thereof, the Court is of the tentative opinion that a similar order should be passed in these writ petitions as well.

6. The petitioners, however, rely on some other orders that they claim to be identical. Be that as it may, the Court is not inclined to pass any interim order today, and instead calls upon learned counsel for the respondents to take instructions as to why the impugned decision should not be directed to be reconsidered by the said authority after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing.

7. It be noted that the preliminary notice was issued to the petitioners; however, before taking the impugned decision, the petitioners were not called upon to explain their action.

8. To this Mr. Nishant Gautam, learned CGSC, who is assisted by Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, learned counsel for responde