Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Omega Pharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 December, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70449
1 WP-48651-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 19th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 48651 of 2025
M/S OMEGA PHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akash Choudhury - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Suyash Thakur - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
Shri Rohit Jain - Advocate for respondent No.3 on Caveat.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 48652 of 2025
M/S OMEGA PHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akash Choudhury - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Suyash Thakur - Government Advocate for
the respondents/State.
Shri Rohit Jain - Advocate for respondent No.3 on Caveat.
ORDER
This common order shall govern the disposal of W.P. No.48651/2025 and W.P. No.48652/2025 , as the parties as well as issue involved in both the petitions are identical. For the sake of convenience, facts of W.P. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 23-12-2025 13:19:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70449 2 WP-48651-2025 No.48651/2025 are taken into consideration.
2 . The present petition has been filed challenging the arbitrary and illegal order dated 04/12/2025 passed by the respondents which is in gross violation of provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules framed therein, whereby the drugs supplied by the petitioner bearing batch No.GT-31034 and batch No.GT-31036 have been declared as "Not of Standard Quality (NSQ)" and the product has been declared as blacklisted for a period of 2 years and the petitioner firm has been asked to deposit the cost of total batch value with the respondents as a penalty.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 issued a tender bearing No.T-465 dated 14.07.2023 inviting online bids for the rate contract and supply of pharmaceutical products to various Government Hospitals of the State of Madhya Pradesh for a period of 18 months. It is pertinent to note that Clause 16 of the tender document pertains to Quality Testing, while the procedure for blacklisting is stipulated under Clause 21 read with Annexure- IX thereof. The said provisions clearly contemplate that in the event a sample is found to have failed, a second sample is required to be drawn and sent for re-testing. However, no second sample is ever drawn and coercive action in the nature of blacklisting is resorted straightaway in complete disregard to the prescribed procedure. The Divisional Drugs Testing Laboratory has issued the certificates of test dated 29.08.2025, wherein it was stated that the Batch No.GT-31034 and Batch No.GT-31034 of Diclofenac Sodium & Paracetamol Tablets IP is Not of Standard Quality as the 15 tablets and 18 tablets respectively of the batches were found broken. Thereafter the report Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 23-12-2025 13:19:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70449 3 WP-48651-2025 regarding the Batch No.GT-31034 and Batch No.GT-31036 were forwarded by the Deputy Drug Controller and State Licensing Authority Food and Drug Administration to the Managing Director of Madhya Pradesh Health Services vide letter dated 09.09.2025 and 12.09.2025 respectively. The petitioner firm was issued with the show cause notice dated 08.10.2025 and the petitioner firm had duly replied to the same vide their reply dated 16.10.2025. It is further submitted that the impugned declaration of the drug as "Not of Standard Quality (NSQ)" is not based on any detailed chemical analysis or scientific testing, but has been made merely on the basis of visual description. It is further argued that the drug in question remained in the custody of respondent for a prolonged period of nearly 15 months without adherence to any prescribed statutory procedure. The statutory scheme under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules mandates that testing be completed within 60 days specifically to ensure that the chemical composition, properties, and physical characteristics of the drug do not undergo any change on account of delay, improper storage, or mishandling. Therefore, the entire testing process stands vitiated and the resultant NSQ report is liable to be discarded. It is further submitted that on the basis of the said test report forwarded by respondent No.2 to the competent Authority, the impugned order dated 04.12.2025 has been passed in gross violation of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, this petition has been filed.
4 . A short reply has been filed by respondent No.3 taking a preliminary objection with regard to availability of alternative and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 23-12-2025 13:19:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70449 4 WP-48651-2025 efficacious remedy available to the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner is bound by the terms and conditions of the tender document, on the basis of which, he has entered into a contract with the respondent. Clause 23 and 24 of the tender document specifically provides for alternative and efficacious remedy in the form of resolution of disputes and/or appeal. Clause 24 specifically states that any bidder aggrieved by the order passed by the Tender Accepting Authority may represent to the Commissioner (Health), Government of Madhya Pradesh within 15 days from the date of receipt of order and Commissioner (Health) shall dispose of the appeal expeditiously. It is submitted that in view of a specific dispute resolution mechanism provided in the tender document, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. As far as blacklisting of the petitioner company for a period of 2 years is concerned, there is a specific provision provided for blacklisting under the tender document if the terms and conditions of the tender are found to be not complied with. Clause 6 of Annexure-IX of the tender document is dealing with the same. Petitioner's samples were found to be Not of Standard Quality, therefore, such blacklisting has been imposed upon the petitioner with respect to a particular drug for a period of 2 years. The notice issued to the petitioner specifically proposed the action to be taken against the petitioner. Therefore, no interference is warranted. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Motors Limited Vs. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) and others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 671, Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India reported in Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 23-12-2025 13:19:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70449 5 WP-48651-2025 (2007) 8 SCC 449, K.d. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481. He has further drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 11/03/2019 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of M/s Ciron Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Private Limited Vs. The Madhya Pradesh Public Health Services Corporation Limited & another (W.P. No.4838/2019), wherein the petition was dismissed for want of alternative and efficacious remedy.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. From the perusal of the documents, it is clear that the notice which was given to the petitioner has clearly mentioned the proposed action to be taken against the petitioner. Therefore, it is not the case where blacklisting of the petitioner has been done with respect to a particular product without making him aware of the proposed action to be taken against the petitioner. Entire action has been taken in terms of Clause 6 of Annexure-IX of the tender document. There are alternative dispute resolution mechanisms provided under the tender document. The relevant clauses being 23 and 24 are as under:-
"23. RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES
(i) The purchaser and the supplier shall make every effort to resolve, amicably by direct informal negotiation any disagreement or dispute arising between them under or in connection with the contract,
(ii) In case of a dispute or difference arising between the purchaser and a supplier relating to any matter arising out of or connected with this agreement, such dispute or difference shall be settled in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The venue of arbitration shall be Bhopal.
24. APPEAL:
(i) Any Bidder aggrieved by the order passed by the Tender Accepting Authority may represent to the Commissioner (Health) Government of Madhya Pradesh within 15 days from the date of receipt of order Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 23-12-2025 13:19:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70449 6 WP-48651-2025 and Commissioner (Health) shall dispose the appeal expeditiously. In case the dispute is related to supply order the order date would be date as given in electronically generated e-order.
(ii) No Appeal shall be preferred while the tender is in process and until tender is finalized and Notification of award is issued by the purchaser."
7 . In view of the aforesaid, as the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy, no relief has been extended to the petitioner.
8 . Both the petitions stand dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative and efficacious remedy in terms of clause 23 and 24 of the tender documents.
9. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE Shbhnkr Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 23-12-2025 13:19:58