1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 504 OF 2009 (1) GENO PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED a Company incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at Pharmaceutical Complex, Tivim Industrial Estate, Karaswada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa through its Company Secretary Mr. R. S. Kholkar. (2) Mr. S. S. Talwadker Executive Director and Share Holder of the Petitioner No.1 Company, residing at St.Inez, Panaji, Goa. ... Petitioners versus (1) UNION OF INDIA, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, having Office at: Jawahar Vyapar Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001. (2) NATIONAL PHARMACEUTICAL PRICING AUTHORITY, Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals, having its Office at the YMCA Cultural Centre Bldg., 1 Jaisingh Road, New Delhi – 110 001. ... Respondents 2 Shri A. N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Shri D. Lawande, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri C. A. Ferreira, Assistant Solicitor General for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO & U. D. SALVI, JJ. DATE : 29TH JANUARY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT(Per N. A. BRITTO, J.) Heard. 2. This Writ Petition was admitted on 17-11-2009 and was taken up today for considering interim relief. At the time of hearing, Shri A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has submitted that all the three products involved in this Writ Petition were manufactured by the Petitioners in November, 2001, and marketed prior to December, 2001 before the Notification came in force. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Petitioners had records to prove that they had marketed the said products prior to the date of the Notification and being so would not be liable under the D.P.C.O. 1995. To that, Shri C. A. Ferreira, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the Respondents, submits that the Petitioners were called upon to produce the records of marketing which they failed to produce. Shri Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners still have the 3 records to prove that they had produced and marketed the said three products prior to November, 2001, and they are willing to produce the same either before the Deputy Director or before this Court. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that two of the products, namely Genogyl tablets and Gery ointment were exempted by Notification dated 2-3-1995 and the Ministry's Order No.8/1/98-PI.I dated 15th October, 1998, as the Petitioner is a Small Scale Industry. 3. Learned Senior Counsel therefore submits that the impugned Order dated 19-12-2001 could be treated as show cause notice and the Petitioner could be heard afresh in the matter. He further submits that no show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner. 4. After hearing the learned Senior Counsel and the learned Assistant Solicitor General on behalf of both the parties, we find that the request made on behalf of the Petitioners by their learned Senior Counsel is fair and reasonable. We therefore direct Respondent No.2 i.e. National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority to treat the demand notice as show cause notice and decide the same upon hearing the Petitioners within a period of eight weeks. The Petitioners to file their reply along with necessary documents before the said authority within a period of two weeks. We direct Respondent No.2 to dispose of the said show cause notice after hearing the Petitioners and 4 in accordance with law within the said period of eight weeks. 5. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule made absolute on the above terms, with no order as to costs. N. A. BRITTO, J. U. D. SALVI, J. RD