IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 RP.No. 600 of 2011(E) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20849/2011 Dated 03/08/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------- M/S.VIVEK PHARMACHEM (INDIA) LTD., AI-SETHI COLONY,JAIPUR, RAJASTAN,PIN 302 004, REP.BY THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY RAMESH BHANDARI. BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE(J) DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 2. THE KERALA MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION LTD.,TRIVANDRUM,REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. M/S.SANSE LABORATORIES PVT.LTD.,B.NO.2, ELAPPUNKAL JUNCTION, KOZHUVANAL 686 523, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. R1 BY BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.AJAY, SC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss R.P. NO.600/20111 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES A1:- COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED IN WA. 1404/2010 DTD. 27.9.2010. A2:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAPERS OF THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON 21.12.2010. A3:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAPERS OF THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON 21.12.2010. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... R.P.600/2011 in W.P.(C).20849/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 8th day of August, 2011 ORDER In this Review Petition, petitioner is seeking review of the order dated 3.8.2011, declining the interim order to direct the second respondent not to grant 10% price preference to the SSI Units. 2. The case of the petitioner was that the price preference provided in the tender notification is against the directions contained in Ext.P6 judgment of this Court. However, during the arguments, it came out that the tender condition providing for price preference was incorporated based on the resolution of the Board of Directors dated 21.12.2010. On that basis, this Court held that Ext.P6 judgment pertaining to the tender invited for the year 2010-11 may not be of relevance in so far as Ext.P7 tender for the year 2011-12 is concerned. Further it was also noticed that the validity of the aforesaid Board Resolution of the Company, which led to 10% price preference, was not under challenge in the writ petition. R.P.600/11 2 3. Apparently, in view of the above, an amendment application has now been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the resolution of the Board of Directors dated 21.12.2010, a copy of which is Ext.P15. 4. The contention now raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a reading of Ext.P16 shows that the Managing Director of the second respondent Company supplied wrong facts to the Board of Directors and that on the facts so supplied, Board of Directors took the decision which led to the passing of resolution dated 21.12.2010. On this basis it is contended that the price preference introduced based on such an illegal Resolution should not be given effect to. 5. Therefore, the whole case of the petitioner depends upon the validity or otherwise the resolution of the Board of Directors dated 21.12.2010, which question can be decided only after the respondents filed the counter affidavit and the matter is heard. I do not think that until that exercise is completed, it may be R.P.600/11 3 proper for this Court to grant the interim order, restraining the Company from giving effect the provisions under the tender notice providing for 10% price preference. 6. Therefore, I do not think the order dated 3.8.2011 is vitiated for any error apparent on its face, warranting exercise of review power. Review Petition will stand dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs