pvr 1 wp271-11 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.271 OF 2011 1.Ipca Laboratories Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners vs. 1.Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.N.H.Seervai, Sr.Advocate with Gulnar Mistry & Ashish Rao i/b. M/s.M. & M. Legal Ventures, for Petitioners. Mr.G.R.Sharma with Mr.Rajinder Kumar, for Respondents. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED: 11th April,2011 P.C.: 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. The relevant facts are that Respondent no.2-National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority by order dated 11.3.1998 in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- pvr 2 wp271-11 paragraphs(1) and (2) of Paragraph 9 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995, fixed the price of Lariago-DS tablet containing 500 milligrams Chloroquine phosphate at Rs.9.50 for a strip of six. That order was challenged by the petitioner in this Court by filing writ petition no.1506/02. That petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 2.9.2002. The Court found that the remedy of filing review under para 22 of the Drugs (Prices) Control Order before the Central Government is available to the petitioners and therefore, the Court declined to entertain the petition. It was directed that if the petitioners file review within a period of 15 days from the date of the order, the Central Government shall decide the Review application on merit by a speaking order, and the petition was disposed of. It is common ground before us that thereafter the petitioner filed review before the Central Government. On that review application, order dated 16.7.2003 was made by the Central Government. The ultimate paragraph of that order pvr 3 wp271-11 reads as under:- Keeping in view the situation explained in the foregoing paragraphs, NPPA is directed to examine the data and refix the price of the formulation for the period that covered by S.O.193(E) dated 11.3.1998 upto the issuance of S.O. 657(E) dated 26.9.2000, keeping in view the cost or efficiency or both of the petitioner, in terms of para 9 of DPCO,1995. However, if after examining the data and by keeping in view the cost or efficiency or both of the petitioner, NPPA arrives at the same price as was fixed vide impugned S.O.193(E) dated 11.3.1998, there may be no need to refix the price. Thus, by that order the Central Government remitted the matter back to respondent no.2 for redetermination of the price. This order clearly implies that the Central Government set aside the original fixation done by respondent no.2 and respondent no.2 was directed to re-fix the price. Obviously, therefore, it was for the respondent pvr 4 wp271-11 no.2 to take up the work of re-fixation of price in accordance with law. However, it appears that respondent no.2 instead of following that course of re-fixing of price, submitted its opinion to the Central Government which passed order dated 6.11.2009 rejecting the review which was filed by the petitioners. It appears from order dated 6.11.2009 that on remand of the matter to NPPA, the NPPA re-fixed the price in as much as it came to the conclusion that no change in the price originally fixed by it, was necessary. However, NPPA-Respondent no.2 instead of making that order and intimating it to the petitioners, submitted the matter to the Central Government treating that review petition filed by the petitioners is still pending and acting on that communication from NPPA, the Central Government without granting any opportunity of being heard, made order dated 6.11.2009 dismissing the review filed by the petitioners which no longer was pending before the Central Government because it was already disposed of by the Central Government by pvr 5 wp271-11 order dated 16.7.2003. It is thus clear that the petitioners grievance against order dated 6.11.2009 is justified. The Government could not have made that order treating the review filed by the petitioners pending, because that review was not pending before the Government on 6.11.2009 when the order was made. In our opinion, therefore, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- Order dated 6.11.2009 is set aside. The Respondent no.2 is directed to reconsider the matter which is remanded to it by order dated 16.7.2003 and re-fix the price as directed by the Central Government. The Respondent no.2 shall examine the position  whether, before re-fixing the price pursuant to order dated 16.7.2003, it is obliged under the law to grant an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. If respondent no.2 come to the conclusion that an opportunity of being heard is to be granted to the petitioners, then it shall grant an pvr 6 wp271-11 opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and then makes order of re-fixation of price. In any case, any order that Respondent no.2 makes, shall be communicated to the petitioners so that if the petitioners feel aggrieved by the same, the petitioners can challenge the same. It is, however, directed that any order that respondent no.2 makes which may be adverse to the interest of the petitioners, shall not be given effect for a period of four weeks from the date on which it is communicated to the petitioners. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) ( ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.)