Page No.# 1/13 GAHC010248542024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6158/2024 MR. RIPONJYOTI SARMAH @ RIPON SARMAH S/O KHAGEN SARMAH PROPRIETOR OF M/S KAZIRANGA MEDICOS. MOTHER TERESA ROAD, NARENGI, GUWAHATI KAMRUP M ASSAM 781026 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 110011 2:THE DIRECTOR ROOM NO. 545 A WING CENTRAL GOVT. HEALTH SCHEME DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CENTRAL GOVT. HEALTH SCHEME MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE NIRMAN BHAWAN NEW DELHI 110011 3:THE ADDL. DDG(HQ) DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CENTRAL GOVT. HEALTH SCHEME MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE NIRMAN BHAWAN NEW DELHI 110011 4:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR CENTRAL GOVT. HEALTH SCHEME AK AZAD ROAD GOPINATH NAGAR GUWAHATI 781016 Page No.# 2/13 5:GOVERMENT E-MARKETPLACE (GEM) DEPTT. OF COMMERCE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE GOVT. OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 3RD FLOOR TOWER II JEEVAN BHARTI BUILDING CANNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI-11000 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioner(s) : Dr. R. C. Borpatra Gohain, Senior Advocate Mrs. S. Borpatra Gohain, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. R. Devi, CGC Mr. B. P. Borah, Advocate Date on which judgment is reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment : 16.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment? : Yes Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : NA JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Dr. R. C. Borpatra Gohain, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mrs. S. Borpatra Gohain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mrs. R. Devi, the learned Page No.# 3/13 CGC appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. B. P. Borah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.5. 2. The Petitioner herein has filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction to extend the time of the Technical Bid of the Open E-Tender F.No.CMS/CGHS-GHY/ALC/2024-27 dated 04.10.2024 and further to allow the Petitioner to participate in the said tender process issued by the Additional Director of CGHS. 3. At the outset, it is relevant to take note of that the Petitioner had not assailed the action on the part of the Respondent Authorities, more particularly the Respondent No.4 in not accepting the Bid of the Petitioner. The Petitioner had also not challenged the empanelment granted to two entities pursuant to the said tender process. 4. The records reveal that on 04.10.2024, an online Bid was invited from reputed local Chemists with shops located in Guwahati City within municipality area for supply of allopathic medicines to CGHS Wellness Centers of Guwahati under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. The said online Bid categorically mentioned the Schedule for submission of the Bid as well as the last date and time for Page No.# 4/13 uploading of the Bid. It was further mentioned that the Technical Bids would be opened on 01.11.2024. The Petitioner being interested submitted his Bid as proprietor of “M/S Kaziranga Medicos”. However, at the stage of processing the Bids to be sent to the Respondent Nos.1 to 4, the Respondent No.5 did not process the Petitioner's Bid with the remark “the uploaded certificate expired. Kindly upload renewed certificate”. Therefore, the Bid so uploaded in the GeM Portal by the Petitioner was not forwarded to the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 by the Respondent No.5. At the cost of repetition, this Court reiterates that in the present proceedings, there is no challenge to the action of the Respondent No.5 in not processing the Bid of the Petitioner so that the same can be taken into consideration by the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. 5. The records further reveal that subsequent thereto, another status was updated at the GeM Portal by the Respondent No.5 in relation to the local empanelment service. In so far as the Petitioner’s licenses, it was mentioned that the certificate of the Petitioner could not be validated through the issuing Authority database/website. 6. The Petitioner submitted an email dated 30.10.2024 requesting the extension of the last date for submission on technical grounds. In the said email, the Petitioner duly informed Page No.# 5/13 that the Petitioner’s catalogue was not approved by the GeM Authority and upon contacting the GeM Authority, it was informed to the Petitioner that the same would take some time for approval. 7. On the same date, the Additional Director, CGHS informed the Petitioner that the request made by the Petitioner could not be considered at that point of time. 8. On 06.11.2024, the Petitioner submitted a representation to the Respondent No.5 stating inter-alia that the Drug licenses were issued by the Drug Controller, Assam manually in 2007 which is still prevalent in Assam and there was no license issued online till date. The said licenses were valid till 31.12.2026. It was further mentioned that the Petitioner had applied for a fresh license online in the Ease Of Doing Business Website of the Government of Assam on 06.11.2024, and therefore, requested the Respondent No.5 to consider approval of the Petitioner's catalogue as a one-time measure so that the Petitioner may not be deprived of natural justice with regard to participation in the bidding process within the last date, i.e. 08.11.2024. The Petitioner enclosed to the said communication the licenses in Form 20 and Form 21, retention/renewal certificate upto 31.12.2026 as well as the Acknowledgement of Online Application for Drug license. Page No.# 6/13 9. The Petitioner again issued another communication to the Respondent No.4 dated 09.11.2024 requesting to accept the Technical Bid as the said Bid was complete in all respects. 10. This Court vide an order dated 06.12.2024, passed an order directing maintenance of status quo till the next date. The records further reveal that on 13.12.2024, notice was issued and the status quo order was extended to the next date. The records reveal that by a detailed order dated 01.04.2025, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had vacated the interim order for maintenance of the status quo. 11. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 on 17.12.2024. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, the Respondents have categorically mentioned that the Respondent No.4 had not rejected the Petitioner's application for extension of the last date for submission of the Bid on the ground that the Petitioner's uploaded certificate had expired. It was mentioned that the rejection of the Petitioner's request for extension were that the E-Tender Notice dated 18.09.2024 had to be cancelled due to error in figures and years and re-publication was done on 04.10.2024 resulting in an extension of 10 days in the tender process. Secondly, there was a standing instruction from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to shift from the earlier Central Public Procurement System to the latest GeM system for Page No.# 7/13 appointment of ALCs for which the Respondent No.4 was under severe pressure to ensure completion of the tender process before the targeted date, i.e. 16.12.2024. Thirdly, granting extension of the last date for submission of the Bid on the basis of the application of the Petitioner might open up a floodgate for numerous other such applications from other aspiring bidders causing enormous chaos and disorder leading to a paralytic situation of the tendering process, and finally, on 30.10.2024 itself, the Respondent No.4 had extended the last date for submission of the Bid by 7 days from 01.11.2024 to 08.11.2024 due to the collision of the earlier declared last date (i.e. 01.11.2024) with local holiday declared by the Government of Assam. 12. 12. The Respondent No.4 further stated that the question of rejecting the Petitioner's request had nothing to do with the Petitioner’s expired certificate in as much as, the approval of the catalogue by the GeM Authority and such other matters comes under the exclusive domain of the GeM portal and the Respondent No.4 is not even remotely connected or concerned with these matters. Further to that, it was mentioned that the GeM portal had the sole authority to allow or disallow uploading of the Bid document by the bidder and the Respondent No.4 has no role. It is only when the bidder successfully uploads his Bid Page No.# 8/13 documents and then only at the earmarked time for opening of the Technical Bid arrives, the GeM portal allows the Respondent No.4 to open the Technical Bid. Under such circumstances, it was mentioned that the question of the rejection of the Petitioner's application by the Respondent No.4 on the ground that his uploaded certificate had expired is misconceived. 13. The affidavit of the Respondent No.5 is of relevance taking into account the stand which was taken by the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. In the affidavit filed by the Respondent No.5, it is mentioned that the Respondent No.5 is a National Public Procurement Portal - an end-to-end online market for Central and State Government Ministries/Departments, Central and State Public Sector Undertakings (CPSUs and SPSUs), autonomous institutions and local bodies for procurements of goods and services. The said portal is owned and managed by GeM SPV which is a Section 8 (non-profit) Company registered under the Companies Act, 2013. In so far as the dispute in question, it was categorically mentioned at paragraph No.5 of the said affidavit that the Petitioner in the month of November, 2024 applied for the service category (Local Chemist Empanelment Service). In so far as this service category was concerned, pursuant to the uploading of the service catalogue on the GeM portal, the application of the service provider goes through a scrutiny Page No.# 9/13 process via the Respondent No.5’s vendor verification agency, i.e. RITES Limited. It is only after due verification and approval by RITES Limited that the service catalogue of a service provider gets published on the GeM portal in the relevant service category. Further to that, it was mentioned that a service provider can participate in the bidding process once the service catalogue of the service provider is published in the relevant category. In so far as the Petitioner was concerned, the RITES Limited rejected the application of the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner's drug license certificate could not be verified from the issuing authority database/website and further, the license renewal/license retention letter issued by the Competent Authority in favour of the Petitioner from the period of 2011 to 2022 was also not submitted by the Petitioner in the uploaded document. It is under such circumstances, the application of the Petitioner to upload the service catalogue was rejected by RITES Limited. 14. Further to that, it is also mentioned that a bare perusal of Clause 3 of the General Terms and Conditions of the GeM portal makes it amply clear that a seller / service provider, i.e. the Petitioner in the present case, shall be exclusively responsible to ensure that all documents, information being uploaded on the GeM portal shall be free from any defects or deficiencies, and in Page No.# 10/13 case of any defects, the seller/service provider shall be liable to bear the consequences for the same. It was also stated that in the present case, it cannot be even remotely presumed that there was any technical glitch or issue on the GeM portal. On the contrary, the drug license of the Petitioner was duly rejected by RITES Limited solely due to the defects and deficiencies in the documents submitted by the Petitioner. 15. This Court had also taken note of that replies have also been filed by the Petitioner to the affidavits-in-opposition filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 as well as the Respondent No.5. 16. In the backdrop of the above, this Court heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties whose submissions have been made on the basis of their averments made in their respective pleadings and further to the effect that in the meantime, two Wellness Centers have been appointed pursuant to the tender process. 17. This Court had duly perused the materials on record and more particularly the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No.5. From the affidavit-in-opposition of the Respondent No.5, it is mentioned that its vendor agency, i.e. RITES Limited, has not approved the Petitioner's application from being uploaded on the ground of finding certain deficiencies in Page No.# 11/13 the drug license which were uploaded by the Petitioner. 18. This Court finds it very pertinent to take note of that the drug license is issued in terms with Rule 61 of the Drugs Rules, 1945 and the corresponding Forms in which these licenses are issued are Form 20, Form 21, and Form 21A. Rule 61 of the Drugs Rules, 1945 do not postulate the requirement of a renewal, rather, a very perusal of the license in Form 20, Form 21 as well as Form 21A clearly shows that the license unless sooner suspended or cancelled shall remain valid perpetually. This aspect can also be seen from the certificate which was issued by the Inspector of Drugs, Kamrup (Metro) in respect to the license of the Petitioner wherein it is duly mentioned about a Notification of the Central Government No.GSR 1337(E) dated 27.10.2017 that a license unless sooner suspended or cancelled, shall remain valid perpetually. 19. It is also very pertinent to mention that Clause 2 of Form 20, Form 21 and Form 21A were substituted pursuant to the said Notification w.e.f. 27.10.2017 and it is clearly stipulated in Clause 2 that a license unless sooner suspended or cancelled shall remain valid perpetually. The Respondent No.5 or its vendor agency, i.e. RITES Limited whom the Respondent No.5 considered to have the basic qualification to carry out the scrutiny process, ought to have known this very basic aspect Page No.# 12/13 while evaluating the certificates of the Petitioner. It is apparent that on account of the mistake on the part of the GeM, i.e. the Respondent No.5 as well as its vendor verification agency, i.e. RITES Limited, the situation has arisen. 20. Be that as it may, the question however arises in the instant proceedings as to whether this Court at this stage could pass a direction for granting an extension to the Petitioner to submit a particular document or for consideration of the Petitioner's Technical Bid as well as the Price Bid, more particularly when Chemists have been already empanelled to the Wellness Centers. 21. It is the opinion of this Court that passing such order at this stage would affect the rights of the Chemists who have been empanelled to the Wellness Centers. Apart from that, the Petitioner has not challenged before this Court the action of the Respondent No.5 not to process the Petitioner’s Bid. 22. Considering the above, this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the present facts of the case for which the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 23. This Court however finds it pertinent to clarify that for the reasons aforementioned, this Court has not entertained the present dispute. It shall not, however, bar the Petitioner to avail Page No.# 13/13 remedies for damages against the concerned Respondent Authorities for whose failure the Petitioner could not participate in the tender process before a Court or Forum of competent jurisdiction. It is further observed that if the Petitioner seeks such remedies, the same shall be adjudicated in accordance with law without being influenced by the dismissal of the present writ petition. 24. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Pradip Kumar Kalita Digitally signed by Pradip Kumar Kalita Date: 2026.06.26 14:50:59 +05'30'