Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010158672025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/304/2025 M/S AGRON REMEDIES PVT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS DIRECTOR SRI MUDIT AGARWAL, SON OF SRI GK AGARWAL, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SARVERKHERA, MORADABAD ROAD, KASHIPUR (U.S. NAGAR), UTTARKHAND PIN-244713. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN-781006, ASSAM. 2:THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HEALTH AND FAMILY WEFLARE DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI PIN 781006 ASSAM. 3:THE MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR REGISTERED ADDRESS AT CENTRAL DRUG WARE HOUSE COMPUS PATHERQUERY NARENGI GUWAHATI ASSAM 781026 4:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION LTD. REGISTERED ADDRESS AT CENTRAL DRUG WARE HOUSE CAMPUS PATHERQUERY NARENGI GUWAHATI ASSAM 781026 5:THE GENERAL MANAGER PROCUREMENT QC IT LOGISTICS ASSAM MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION LTD Page No.# 2/5 For the Appellant(s) : Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. K. Sarma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Gogoi, Additional Advocate General, Assam. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 29.10.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. K. Sarma, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam for the State respondents. 2. The appellant/firm, which had entered into a Rate Contract with the respondents for supply of medicines, stands debarred from participating in any future tender for 3(three) years, which, according to the respondents, is in consonance with the terms of the contract. 3. It appears from the records that more than 3(three) items of medicines under the Rate Contract were not delivered within time; for which a notice was issued to the appellant/firm intimating that it shall be debarred from supplying the products under the rate chart as per the referred penal clauses of the tender, if the explanation offered by the appellant/firm was not satisfactory and the other financial penalties also would be invoked against the appellant/firm if its reply would not find favour with the respondents. Page No.# 3/5 4. Page No.# 3/5 4. The appellant/firm appears to have replied to the said notice stating that because of the logistical issues, the left over 20% of the quantity of the medicines were not supplied and if the appellant/firm was permitted 15 (fifteen) days time, the same would be supplied to the respondents. However, by an undated order contained in Memo e-File No.500616/11849-11860, the appellant/firm has been blacklisted and debarred from participating in any tender for 3(three) years, as per the tender Clause No.5, which deals with the terms and conditions, for 23 Nos. of essential drugs under the Rate Contract. 5. Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant/firm has submitted that the notice for debarment dated 17.02.2025 did not clearly indicate that if the explanations of the appellant were not found to be acceptable, it would be prevented from participating in any further tender for 3(three) years. All that the notice indicated was that the products would be debarred. 6. Contesting the afore-noted arguments, Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam submits that in the body of the notice, it has clearly been stated that in case the explanations are not found to be satisfactory, the firm shall be blacklisted and debarred from participating in any tender by the ITA or procuring agency for 3(three) years if the company is debarred for all the items (where it has Rate Contract for less than 3 items) or at least 3 items (where it holds Rate Contract for more than equal to 3 items). Page No.# 4/5 It has also been mentioned that in case of product debarment, in addition to product debarment the performance security deposited by the supplier for that particular product shall be forfeited and apportioned towards financial penalty and in case of firm debarment, in addition to firm debarment the entire performance security deposited by the supplier shall be forfeited and apportioned towards penalty. 7. Mr. Sahewalla, however, has pointed out that these are the penal provisions provided in the terms of the contract, but so far as the operative part of the notice is concerned, it only refers to debarment of the products and there is no reference of final debarment of the appellant/firm from participating in any fresh tender for Rate Contract. 8. It has, thus, been submitted that the learned Single Judge, while dealing with the issue, missed out on this aspect and refused to grant any interim protection to the appellant/firm so far as it related to the prayer made on behalf of the appellant/firm that it ought not to be debarred from participating in any future tender for 3(three) years. 9. Considering the afore-noted aspect of the matter, we deem it appropriate to modify the order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.2556/2025 to the extent that the appellant/firm would be permitted to participate in the tender for Rate Contract, barring the drugs which could not be supplied by the appellant/firm for any reason whatsoever. The writ petition, however, shall be decided on its own merits whenever it is listed for consideration. Page No.# 5/5 10. The writ appeal stands disposed off with the afore-noted modification in the order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant