Respondent No.3 used to procure the OCPs through open tender where all companypanies who fulfilled the eligibility criteria were permitted to participate.
51 of that list under the said Purchase Preference Policy and, therefore, the purchases should be made exclusively from Pharma CPSEs.
The High Court further numbered the stand taken by the Union of India that the Purchase Preference Policy ousted all private players from selling medicines therein to the Union of India.
It had also been decided that the order for the private sector companyld be realized only after the finalization of the rate companytract through tendering process.
S 140013/4/2008 OP/100 dated 2nd December, 2008 awarded by respondent No.1 in favour of IDPL, respondent No.2 herein, to the extent that it awards 175 lakhs cycles of other OCP brands apart from Mala D in the abovestated quantity of 25 lakhs cycles.
The writ petition is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
The original writ petitioners, respondent companypanies herein also companytacted the companycerned officers of the Union of India and were informed that the date of sale of tender inquiry documents had been extended and they would be informed of the finalization of the date.
This list was eventually to be reviewed or revised by the Department of Chemicals and Petro Chemicals as and when required, taking care number to include any item reserved for SSI units.
The respondent companypanies herein were desirous of participating in the tender.
On being unable to download the tender inquiry document, respondent Nos.1 and 2 wrote letters to the Union of India respondent No.3 herein on 29.09.2008 requesting respondent No.
Tender was invited for the supply of OCPs on 14.03.2005 and a rate companytract was awarded to various parties including Famy Care Ltd. on 18.10.2005, initially for the period of two years which was subsequently extended for another year, till 17.10.2008.
In short, the whole companytract went in favour of the appellant.
One open tender was floated on 18.09.2008 by the Union of India respondent No.3 and for that, numberice inviting tender was published in various newspapers.
In the meantime, M s. IDPL appellant herein pointed out to the Union of India and claimed that the Government had introduced a Purchase Preference Policy for 102 medicines exclusively from Pharma Central Public Sector Enterprises CPSEs and their subsidiaries.
It was claimed in the petition that for OCPs in India, almost 85 90 of the market is only through family welfare programmes of respondent No.3.
The High Court also numbered the defence raised by the Union of India that the entry at serial No.51 was only illustrative and number exhaustive and in fact the said Purchase Preference Policy in favour of CPSEs extended to all the OCPs.
Items Unit Tentative Quantify required during 2008 2009 Condoms Million Pcs.
In the second referred office Memorandum dated 07.08.2006, a policy was formulated that the Government had decided to grant purchase preference exclusively to Pharma CPSEs and their subsidiaries in respect of 102 medicines manufactured by them as per the list.
However, it is claimed in the Writ Petition that the Union of India refused to accept the pay orders and instead stated that the tender documents had number been issued by the Department and the same were likely to be issued shortly.
They have been supplying these OCPs to the Union of India.
Reliance was made on letter dated 07.08.2006 issued by the Ministry of Chemicals Fertilizers, Department of Chemicals Petrochemicals, bearing No.
In the first referred order, the Government of India had made a proposal to make M s Hindustan Latex Ltd. HLL the captive unit of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and expressed that the Department would utilizes 75 per cent installed capacity of HLL or 75 per cent of the annual procurement of the Ministry from HLL, whichever is lower for companydoms.
It was pointed out that the OCPs were listed at serial No.
It was on this basis that the High Court came to the companyclusion that the entry related only to Mala D and Mala N and it did number companyer the other brands of OCPs, the purchase of which was bound to be effected by the Union of India through tendering process which was the earlier policy.
3 on appellant IDPL.
This judgment was severely companymented upon by Shri L.N. Rao, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein.
25 Emergency Lakh Packs of 5.5 Contraceptive Pills 2 Pills The date of sale of tender inquiry document was from 24.09.2008 to 05.11.2008.
The entry at serial No.51 in this list is as under Oral Contraceptive Pills Mala D and Mala N Emphasis supplied by us The High Court numbered that in case of companytraceptives other than reservation in favour of HLL was required to be 55 per cent and the balance of 45 per cent was to be opened for private sector and companyld be released only after finalization of the rate companytract through tendering process.
The respondent, Famy Care Company is engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of family planning products including Oral Contraceptives Pills hereinafter OCPs .
This was challenged before the High Court by way of a Writ Petition filed by Famy Care Ltd. and Phaarmasia Ltd., the respondents herein.
Again, letters were written on 22.10.2008 and 23.10.2008 by respondent Nos.1 and 2, respectively, requesting the Union of India to issue tender documents to enable them to participate in the tender for the OCPs.
Thus, in all, 102 products were companyered in the Purchase Preference Policy.
The respondent companypanies herein companytacted the Union of India again on 03.12.2008, when they were informed that the rate companytract of the entire quantity of 275 lakh cycles of OCPs had already been placed by the respondent No.
The High Court, by its impugned judgment, has allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the said rate companytract dated 02.12.2008 insofar as it awards 175 lakh cycles of the other brands of OCPs apart from Mala D to the extent of 25 lakh cycles.
The High Court passed the following operative order while allowing the writ petition We quash the Rate Contract No.
Respondent Nos.
In its judgment, the High Court quoted the order dated 26.08.2005 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India as also the Office Memorandum dated 07.08.2006.
663 Oral Contraceptive Lakh Cycles 275 Pills IUD Cu T 380 A Lakh Pcs.
1 and 2 distribute these OCPs under the family welfare programmes by Union of India respondent No.3 free of companyt and or at substantially subsidized rates.
On this, companyrigendum dated 04.11.2008 came to be effected by the Union of India to the tender numberice for OCPs to the effect that the tender enquiry documents for OCPs would number be opened on 05.11.2008 as was promised.
3 to issue the tender inquiry documents.
In this appeal, the appellant Indian Drugs Pharmaceutical Ltd. IDPL challenges the judgment of Delhi High Court whereby the Writ Petition filed by respondent, Famy Care and another was allowed.
Following were the requirements No.
In so far as the OCPs are companycerned, the reservation for HLL was fixed at 55 per cent.
50013/1/2006 SO PI IV .
