72-WP-11912-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR 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 HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Digitally signed by HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Date: 2026.08.20 10:44:45 +0530 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