1 2026:CGHC:24843-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2939 of 2026 Divine Laboratories Private Limited B. No. 471, Dabhasa, Tal. Padra, District Vadodara, Gujrat- 391440, Through Its Authorized Signatory, Naveen Kumar Nishad, S/o B.R. Nishad, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Kumharpara, Behind Peeli Building, Raman Mandir Ward, Fafadih, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Through Its Managing Director, Sector- 27 Housing Board Complex, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Deputy Director Food And Drug Administration, First And Second Floor, Old Nursing Hostel, D.K.S. Building Hospital Parisar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Controller Food And Drug Administration, Indrawati Bhawan, Block 1, Fourth Floor, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate For State Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 For Respondent No.2 / CGMSC : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan and Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19 . 06 .202 6 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rishabh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/ respondent No.1, 3 & 4 as well as Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan and Mr. Trivikram Nayak, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2 / CGMSC. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs : “1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders quashing the impugned order dated 16.06.2025 (Annex.P/1), whereby the Product namely Heparin Sodium 5000 IU/ml Injection (Drug Code D255) has been blacklisted for a period of 3 years and all the further consequences arises from the impugned order dated 16.06.2025. 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to allow the participation of petitioner product namely Heparin Sodium 5000 IU/ml Injection in the forthcoming tender. 3] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to 3 grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a pharmaceutical company engaged in manufacturing and supply of medicines. The respondent–Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited (CGMSCL), a Government of Chhattisgarh undertaking, issued tenders for rate contract of supply of medicines, pursuant to which the petitioner participated and was declared successful for supply of various drugs, including Heparin Sodium Injection. The petitioner supplied medicines under the relevant tender contracts, including Heparin Sodium 5000 IU/ml Injection (Drug Code D255). Subsequently, show cause notices dated 09.01.2025 and 15.01.2025 were issued alleging that certain batches of supplied medicines were found to be Not of Standard Quality (NSQ). The petitioner submitted its reply disputing the allegations and contended that variation in test results could occur due to improper storage and handling conditions, as Heparin Sodium Injection requires strict temperature-controlled storage. The petitioner further submitted that it was willing to replace the alleged defective batches. The matter was also referred for testing of the remaining sample before the Central Drugs Testing Laboratory, Kolkata pursuant to the order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur. However, without awaiting the final test report, the respondent authorities passed the impugned order dated 16.06.2025 blacklisting the product Heparin Sodium 5000 4 IU/ml Injection for a period of three years by invoking Clause 10(iv) of the tender conditions. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, which is stated to be pending. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of blacklisting on the ground that the same has been passed arbitrarily, without proper consideration of its explanation and without awaiting the final test report. 4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, without entering into the merits of the challenge raised against the impugned order dated 16.06.2025, the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent No.1–competent appellate authority to consider and decide the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner expeditiously, within a stipulated period. It is submitted that the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Chhattisgarh on 29.07.2025 challenging the order of blacklisting, which is pending consideration before the said authority. However, despite lapse of considerable time, the appeal has not yet been decided. Therefore, the pending appeal requires early adjudication in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already placed all relevant documents and submissions before the appellate authority and would have no objection if the appeal is directed to be decided on its own merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. 5 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent–State as well as respondent No.2–CGMSC submit that the petitioner has already availed the remedy of appeal against the impugned order dated 16.06.2025 before the competent appellate authority, and the same is pending consideration. It is submitted that the appellate authority shall consider and decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law, after examining the relevant records and affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if required. It is also submitted that the respondents have no objection if this Court directs the competent authority to consider and decide the pending appeal within a reasonable time, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the nature of the relief sought in the present writ petition, this Court finds that the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order dated 16.06.2025 passed by respondent No.2–CGMSC, whereby the product Heparin Sodium 5000 IU/ml Injection was blacklisted for a period of three years. 7. It is not in dispute that the appeal preferred by the petitioner before respondent No.1–Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, is pending consideration. Learned State counsel has submitted that the said appeal shall be considered and decided by the competent 6 authority in accordance with law. 8. Considering the fact that the order of blacklisting has serious civil consequences and affects the business interests of the petitioner, it would be appropriate that the statutory appellate authority considers and decides the pending appeal expeditiously, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all necessary parties. 9. This Court, however, makes it clear that it has not examined the merits of the challenge raised by the petitioner against the order dated 16.06.2025, and all questions of law and facts are left open for consideration by the appellate authority. 10. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1–Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, to consider and decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 16.06.2025, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and while deciding the appeal, respondent No.1 shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as other necessary parties concerned and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. It is further directed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to place all relevant documents and submissions before the appellate authority, and the authority shall consider the same while deciding the appeal. 7 11. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra