Bombay High Court
M/S VISHAL ENTERPRISES THR. PROPRIETER THR. PROPRIETOR SURESH DATTATRAY PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. SECRETARY AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that an order of blacklisting must be preceded by an opportunity of hearing and therefore stayed the impugned orders.
Summary
M/s Vishal Enterprises filed a writ petition challenging two orders dated 4 July 2025 and 29 July 2025 that directed all State entities to avoid purchasing medicines from the petitioner, effectively blacklisting it for alleged supply of spurious drugs. The petitioner argued that the orders were passed without any opportunity of hearing, violating the principles of natural justice, and relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dafodils Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh. The State, represented by the Attorney General, contended that the orders were justified on the basis of FIRs concerning illegal stocking and spurious drug supply and that a hearing was not required. The Bombay High Court held that, despite the seriousness of the allegations, the petitioner must be afforded a hearing before any debarring order can stand, and consequently stayed the impugned orders. The Court directed the respondents to conduct a hearing within four weeks and stay any adverse order for two weeks, disposing the petition without reaching the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether a direction to avoid purchasing medicines from a supplier, amounting to blacklisting, can be issued without affording the supplier a hearing.
- Whether the principles of natural justice apply to administrative orders issued in the context of alleged supply of spurious drugs.
Subjects
- blacklisting
- hearing
- natural justice
- spurious drugs
- procurement
- writ petition
- stay order
Judgment
72-WP-11912-2025.doc
Digitally signed
by HARISH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
HARISH VITHAL
VITHAL CHAUDHARI
CHAUDHARI Date: CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
2026.08.20
10:44:45 +0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11912 OF 2025
M/s Vishal Enterprises
Thr. Proprieter Suresh Dattatray Patil ...Petitioner.
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Thr. Secretary And Others ...Respondents.
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1111 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 11912 OF 2025
The State Of Maharashtra
Thr Secretary And Others ...Applicants.
In the matter between
M/s Vishal Enterprises
Thr. Proprieter Suresh Dattatray Patil ...Petitioner.
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Others ...Respondent.
——————
Mr. Viraj Vikramsinh Nalavade a/w Tanvi Lad, Girish Mujumdar & Sharvari
Tipugade for the Petitioner.
Mr. R. P. Kadam ‘B’ panel Advocate for the Respondent-State.
Dr. Karande, Assistant Professor, RCSMCMC Kolhapur
Shri. A. V. Lokhande, O.S.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : August 19, 2026.
P. C. :
Harish 1 of 4
72-WP-11912-2025.doc
1. By the present petition, the challenge is to the orders dated
4.07.2025 and 29.07.2025 passed by respondent No. 3 and respondent
No. 2 respectively, directing all State entities/authorities to avoid
purchasing medicines from the present petitioner.
2. The submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is
that, though the directions are couched as a direction to "avoid
purchasing medicines" from the petitioner due to an incident of supply
of spurious drugs, in efect, it is an order of blacklisting or debarring the
petitioner from supplying medicines or participating in any tender
process. Drawing support from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Dafodils Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Another v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Another, [2019 (12) JT 283], he submits that without an
opportunity of hearing being given to the petitioner, such directions
could not have been passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
3. Per contra, learned AGP would submit that the directions were
issued by taking into consideration the FIRs which have been lodged
against the petitioners regarding illegal stocking of drugs and the
supply of spurious drugs. He submits that in such cases, there is no
requirement for giving any hearing to the petitioners and the impugned
orders are rightly passed.
4. We have perused the directions of 04.07.2025 and 29.07.2025.
The directions direct the State entities/authorities to avoid purchasing
Harish 2 of 4
72-WP-11912-2025.doc
medicines from the entities mentioned therein, which includes the
present petitioner. It cannot be disputed that the order is, in efect, an
order of blacklisting or debarring, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Dafodils Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Another (supra). In
somewhat similar facts, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that even if
there are pending criminal cases, the same cannot ipso facto result in
unilateral action without giving an opportunity of hearing or a chance to
represent against the impugned order. Though in that case, the Hon’ble
Apex Court had itself quashed and set aside the order, in the present
case, we are inclined to direct the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to grant an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned
order.
5. Insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, the directions
contained in the impugned orders dated 04.07.2025 and 29.07.2025 are
stayed till an appropriate decision is taken by respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
In the event any adverse order is passed, the stay to continue for a
period of two weeks from intimating the order to enable the petitioner
to approach this Court.
6. The respondent No. 2 is expected to conduct the hearing and take
an appropriate decision within a period of four weeks from today.
7. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
8. It is clariied that this Court has not made any observations on the
Harish 3 of 4
72-WP-11912-2025.doc
merits of the matter, and as such, respondent No. 2 to decide the course
of action in accordance with law.
9. In view of disposal of the petition, pending interim application
does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Harish 4 of 4
Checking your session…