Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Age Industries Private Ltd. v. State Of Kerala

    JUDGMENT

    The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:

    “i. To quash Ext.P4 and P7 by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

    ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondent 3 and 4 to release to the petitioner all the payments withheld by them on the basis of Ext.P4, forthwith.

    iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to send the product having Drug Code No. S27088, Gloves Surgical Rubber (ISI) - Non Sterile - Size 7.5″ for analytical test to the Laboratory which is accredited to the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibrating Laboratories (NABL).”

    The main grievance of the petitioner is that, without adverting to the contentions of the petitioner and affording an opportunity of being heard, the 4th respondent has passed Ext.P4 order dated 17.06.2014 blacklisting the product - Gloves Surgical Rubber (ISI) Non Sterile Size 7.5″ manufactured and supplied by the petitioner for a period up to 31.03.2017 and also declared that the petitioner is ineligible to participate in any of the tenders floated by the 4 respondent for the above said product. The appeal preferred in this regard was also rejected and the 1st respondent, who has passed a non-speaking order without properly considering the merits and hence the writ petition.

    2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Standing Counsel for respondent 3 and 4. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 that similar issue had been come up for consideration before this Court and as per judgment dated 18.12.2014 in W.P (C) No. 33845 of 2014, the 4 respondent was directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the concerned petitioner and to have the proceedings finalized.

    3. In the above circumstance, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 4 respondent to consider the matter afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law, at the earliest at any rate, within ‘two months’ from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. So as to facilitate such exercise Exts. P4 and P7 are set aside.

    The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Age Industries Private Ltd. v. State Of Kerala
    (Jan 14, 2015)