Krishna Murari JUDGMENT
Navin Sinha, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellant is aggrieved by indefinite order of blacklisting dated 08.09.2009. The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, only on the ground of delay, as having been preferred ten years later.
3. Ms. Shobha Gupta, learned Counsel for the Appellant, submits that it holds a valid licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Drugs Act') in Form 28 (Rule 76) issued by the Drugs Control Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh. M/s. Palak Pharmaceuticals Private Limited had obtained supplies from the Appellant in the year 2007, and in turn had supplied it to the Respondent under a tender notice dated 04.10.2006. The label 'XYO701' on the injection was an inadvertent human error. The brand name of the medicine was correctly mentioned as "OXY-125". The composition of the medicine was also correctly mentioned as "Oxytetracycline IP Vet 125 mg". The generic word "Hcl" was only missing on the label, and it was written as "OXYTETRACYCLINE INJ. I.P. VET" in place of "OXYTETRACYCLINE HCL INJ. I.P. VET". It was therefore a case of bonafide inadvertent printing error which resulted in misbranding. The product was not substandard or spurious veterinary medicine.
4. The Appellant was served with an order of blacklisting dated 08.09.2009 by the Office of Director, Animal Husbandry Department of the Respondent referring to the State Analyst report dated 10.10.2008, declaring the batch supplied by the Appellant to be of substandard quality (misbranded/not in accordance with Oxytetracycline injection), thus violating clauses 8.12 and 8.23 of the Tender of 2006-07. The Appellant informed the Respondents that it had never made any supplies to them under the Tender in question. The misbranding referred to was an inadvertent error. The Respondents required certain further clarifications which were furnished on 04.05.2019 but to no outcome. The order of blacklisting is causing great prejudice to the Appellant preventing it from participating in similar tenders, the most recent being the rejection by the Government of Rajasthan dated 05.07.2019 for the said reason. No proceedings were taken out by the Respondents against the Appellant Under Sections 23, 25, 26 and 27 of the Drugs Act.
5. The explanation furnished for the delay in the writ petition has not been considered properly. The order of blacklisting being in violation of the principles of natural justice, delay is irrelevant and the cause of action continues because of its indefinite nature and consequences. Learned Counsel has relied heavily on Gorkha Security Services v. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Ors., MANU/SC/0657/2014 : (2014) 9 SCC 105, to submit that the show cause notice dated 21.10.2008 did not meet the requirement of the law. She has further relied upon M/s. Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.,