Full Judgment Text
#13
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4442/2016 & CM APPLs. 18568-18569/2016
RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PRIVATE
LIMITED & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Senior Advocate
with Mr. R. Jawahar Lal, Mr. Siddharth
Bawa and Mr. Shyamal Anand,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGSC with
Mr. Aditya Dewan, Ms. Pallavi Shali
and Mr. Rishikant, Advocates
rd
% Date of Decision: 23 May, 2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
J U D G M E N T
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
th
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12
January, 2016 whereby respondent no. 2 directed the respondent no. 3 to
cancel the petitioner’s licence for manufacturing of “condoms containing
th
4.5% of Benzocaine”. Petitioner further challenges the order dated 19
February, 2016 whereby respondent no. 3 has instructed the petitioner to
submit the product list with original licence for cancellation.
W.P.(C) 4442/2016 Page 1 of 3
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that Benzocaine
condoms do not fall within the definition of new product as the same has
been produced in India since long. He refers to para 3(f) of the writ petition
to contend that first manufacturing licence to manufacture condoms
th
containing Benzocaine was issued on 11 September, 2001.
3. He also states that petitioner had been granted licence to import
rd
Benzocaine products by respondent no. 2 on 23 February, 2015 and at that
time respondent no. 2 did not consider it as a new product.
4. He further states that the condoms containing Benzocaine are still
being sold worldwide.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent states that import
licence in question does not mention Benzocaine and the 2001 licence to
manufacture was issued by respondent no. 3 without any permission from
respondent no. 2.
6. However, it is an admitted position that no show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned orders.
7. Keeping in view the petitioner’s averments that petitioner had been
manufacturing the aforesaid product since 2001 and had imported the same
in February 2015, this Court is of the opinion that respondent should have
given a prior hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.
8. Consequently, petitioner is permitted to file a representation with
respondent no. 2 within two weeks. In the event, the representation is filed
within the stipulated period, the respondent No.2 is directed to decide the
same within a period of eight weeks after giving an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner.
W.P.(C) 4442/2016 Page 2 of 3
th th
9. In the meantime, the impugned orders dated 12 January, 2016 and 9
February, 2016 shall not be given effect to. However, petitioner is directed
to maintain proper accounts of manufacturing, selling and distribution of
condoms containing Benzocaine.
10. With the aforesaid directions, present writ petition and applications
stand disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J
MAY 23, 2016
rn
W.P.(C) 4442/2016 Page 3 of 3