Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Wallace Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and its Manager Director, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa challenging an order passed by the Drugs Prices Liabilities Review Committee (respondent No.2). The petition was admitted and rule was granted on 20th September 1999. Subsequently, the court was informed that the issue raised in the petition was pending before the Supreme Court, and similar petitions in various High Courts were adjourned sine die. When the matter was taken up for final hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Government of India had passed a subsequent order under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995, which superseded the impugned order. In light of this development, the court held that the petition had become infructuous and dismissed it without any order as to costs. The court did not adjudicate on the merits of the case as the challenge was rendered academic.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Infructuous Petition - Challenge to order of Drugs Prices Liabilities Review Committee - Subsequent order by Government of India under Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 superseded the impugned order - Held that the petition has become infructuous and no further adjudication is required (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition challenging the order of the Drugs Prices Liabilities Review Committee should be adjudicated on merits when a subsequent government order has been passed superseding the impugned order.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Writ petition becomes infructuous if subsequent government order supersedes the impugned order
- No need to adjudicate on merits if the issue is rendered academic
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (02) 86
Writ Petition No.119 of 1999
S. M. Singbal for petitioners, Mahesh Amonkar for respondents No.1,2,3
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an order of the Drugs Prices Liabilities Review Committee.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to challenge the order of the Drugs Prices Liabilities Review Committee.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were aggrieved by the order of the Drugs Prices Liabilities Review Committee.
Previous Decisions
Rule was granted on 20th September 1999. The petition was adjourned sine die pending decision of the Apex Court on the same issue.
Issues
Whether the writ petition challenging the order of the Drugs Prices Liabilities Review Committee should be adjudicated on merits when a subsequent government order has been passed superseding the impugned order.
Submissions/Arguments
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Government of India had passed a subsequent order under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995, which superseded the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition challenging an order becomes infructuous if a subsequent government order supersedes the impugned order, and no adjudication on merits is required.
Judgment Excerpts
In this petition, Rule was granted by the Division Bench of this Court on 20th September, 1999.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Government of India had passed a subsequent order under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995, which superseded the impugned order.
In view of the said submission, the petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
Procedural History
Writ petition filed in 1999. Rule granted on 20th September 1999. Petition adjourned sine die pending Supreme Court decision. Subsequently, when taken up for hearing, petitioners' counsel informed that a subsequent government order superseded the impugned order. Petition dismissed as infructuous on 19th February 2013.
Acts & Sections
- Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995:
