1 WP2711/02 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2711 OF 2002 Tridoss Laboratories Pvt.Ltd. & anr. ...Petitioners v/s Union of India and others ...Respondents Mr Sham Mehta i/b M/s Crawford Bayley and Co. for Petitioners. Mr D.J. Khambata, ASG with Mr A.M. Sethna, Mr Kunal Chaudhary, Mr Hariharan, Mr Srinivasan and Mr Jay Bhatia for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND SMT R.P. SONDURBALDOTA JJ. DATE : 28TH JULY 2010. 2 WP2711/02 P.C. :- 1] Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2] By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 5th April 2002, copy of which is at Exh. Q to the petition. It is common ground that this order was passed consequent upon an order made by this Court directing the Authority to hear the petitioners and make a speaking order. It is common ground before us that the following contentions were in fact raised before the Authority :- A] That it was not permissible for the Government to fix a ceiling price in respect of the petitioners formulation Natvie-C 200 under paragraph 9 of the DPCO 1995 despite the petitioners being the sole manufacturer of this formulation and thereby defeat the exemption granted to the petitioners from the applicability of 3 WP2711/02 paragraph 8 of the DPCO 1995. B] That the material produced by the petitioners in the form of medical publications establish that a capsule is different and distinct from a tablet and that consequently a price fixed for a tablet will not apply to a capsule. C] That the Government could not have fixed any price with regard to Natvie-C 200 without following the formula laid down in paragraph 7 of the DPCO 1995 and without carrying out an enquiry / study in respect of the cost of manufacture of the said formulation of the petitioners in view of the fact that the petitioners are the sole manufacturer of the said formulation. D] That the process of manufacturing Natvie-C 200 is much more expensive than the process of manufacturing a tablet and 4 WP2711/02 accordingly the price fixed for a tablet cannot apply to a capsule. Perusal of the order shows that these contentions have not been considered by the Authority. This shows clear non-application of mind to the relevant aspects raised by the petitioners before the Authority. Non-application of mind by the quasi judicial Authority to a relevant aspect of the matter vitiates the order. The order impugned therefore will have to be set aside. In our opinion, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice. 3] Writ petition succeeds and is allowed, order dated 5th April 2002 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Authority for de novo consideration and decision in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Parties to act on the copy of this order 5 WP2711/02 duly authenticated by Associate / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. (JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH) (JUSTICE SMT R.P. SONDURBALDOTA)