Kerala High Court
M/S.Unicure (India) Limited vs Kerala Medical Service Corporation ... on 12 February, 2016
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/26TH SRAVANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 27238 of 2016 (D)
---------------------------------------------
PETITIONER:
M/S.UNICURE (INDIA) LIMITED,
AN ISO 9000-2008 CERTIFIED COMPANY,
C-22 & 23, SECTOR- 3, NOIDA- 201 301
(UTTER PRADESH) REPRESENTED BY
ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ABDUL MATEEN.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
SRI.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1. KERALA MEDICAL SERVICE CORPORATION LIMITED,
THYCAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION LIMITED,
THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 014.
3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJ.P.
R1 & R2 BY SRI.M.AJAY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX IN WP(C).No. 27238 of 2016 (D)
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BLACKLISTING THE PRODUCT DATED
12.02.2016.
EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 30.5.2016.
EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION DATED 30.05.16.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.
/TRUE COPY/
P.S. TO JUDGE
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.27238 of 2016 D
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of August, 2016
JUDGMENT
The limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when this matter was taken up for admission, is for a direction to the third respondent to consider Exhibit P2 appeal within a time frame. Exhibit P2 is an appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging Exhibit P1 proceedings of the second respondent. It is seen that Exhibit P2 appeal is preferred invoking the right of appeal provided for in the tender notice referred to in Exhibit P1 proceedings.
2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the third respondent to consider Exhibit P2 appeal within a time frame.
WPC 27238/16 2
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P2 appeal on merits, after affording the petitioner an opportunity for hearing, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is free to produce a certified copy of this judgment before the third respondent for compliance.
P.B.Suresh Kumar, Judge tkv