1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION (LODG.) NO.30 OF 2009 M/s. Neo Pharma Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner. Vs. Union of India and others ..Respondents. .... Ms. Rajani Iyer, Senior Advocate with Mr. V.P. Vaidya for the Petitioner. Mr. G. Hariharan with Mr. S.C.Pal, Mr. P.Khosla i/b Dr. T.C. Kaushik for Respondents 1 and 2. Mr. J.S. Saluja, AGP for the State. Mr. Amit Pradhan i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Respondent No.4. ... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. & RAJESH G. KETKAR, J. 3rd April, 2009. P.C. : 1. Rule, by consent of the learned counsel made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the Respondents waive service. With the consent of the learned counsel and at their request, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The challenge in these proceedings is to an order passed by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority on 4th October, 2004 2 levying an amount of Rs.23,45,923/- upon the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner violated the provisions of the Drug (Price Control) Order 1995 in the sale of a Salbutamol based formulation. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the order does not relate to the governing period for which a notice to show cause was issued. 4. The notice to show cause was issued for the recovery of an overcharged amount under Para 13 of DPCO'95. The notice to show cause contains following statement : “As per the records available with the authority it has been found that you have already overcharged an amount of Rs.14,15,504/- in relation to sale of the said formulations upto June'2000.” 5. The period for which the notice to show cause relates is spelt out in the annexure to the notice as being the year 1999 and the period between January and June 2000. Ex facie, the order of remand of 4th October, 2004 relates to the period between April and 3 November 1998. This is also evident from paragraph 6.05 of the affidavit in reply filed in these proceedings by the Deputy Director in the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority which clarifies that the demand for overcharge relates to the period between April and November 1998. Since the order of demand relates to a period other than that for the period for which the notice to show cause was issued, there is ex facie a violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. The impugned order dated 4th October, 2004 is set aside. However, it is clarified that since the Court has accepted the contention that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice, there has been no occasion for this Court to enter upon the merits of the claim made against the Petitioner. The proceedings shall stand remitted back to the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority which shall pass fresh orders on the notice to show cause dated 29th October, 2003 after furnishing to the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard. It is clarified that in the event that any further demand is sought to be raised for any other period including the period between April and November 1998, it will be open to the 4 authority to issue a fresh notice to show cause and thereupon to adjudicate thereon in accordance with law. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. RAJESH G. KETKAR, J.