$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010425732026 + W.P.(C) 13123/2026 & CM APPL. 61043/2026 CM APPL. 61044/2026 INDINON PHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Mr. Vinay Kumar Dubey, Mr. Anunaya Mehta, Mr. Aryaman Tomer, Mr. Vaishnavi Prajapati and Mr. Vinayak Rastogi, Advs. versus ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR CGHS SOUTH ZONE & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Binsy Susan, Mr. Akshay Sharma, Mr. Akshay Shankar and Ms. Deeksha Pokhriyal, Advs. for R- 3/GeM Mr. Chiranjeev Kumar, Adv. with Mr. Garvil Singh, GP, for R-1, 2, 4 to 6 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R % 15.09.2026 1. This writ petition in the nature of mandamus has been filed directing Additional Director, Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) (South Zone)-respondent no. 1 to expeditiously decide the representations of the petitioner dated 07.08.2026. Further directions were sought to consider the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/09/2026 at 11:34:27 technical evaluations. 2. The petitioner pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 17.04.2026 submitted technical and financial bid in response to separate NITs issued by the CGHS for North, South, East, Central and Head Quarters Zones. The petitioner was disqualified with the remarks that ‘Licensed Pharmacist not present during physical Verification’. 3. The grievance raised is that the petitioner was disqualified in all five zones for the identical reason but the explanation of the son of licensed pharmacist being unwell was accepted by four zones whereas the south zone has not decided the representations till date. 4. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 to 6 appearing on advance notice on instructions contends that the representation shall be decided within ten days and the decision shall be communicated to the petitioner. 5. In view of the above statement, the petition is disposed of. 6. Needless to say, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail the remedy in accordance with law, if aggrieved of the decision of the respondent. AVNEESH JHINGAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2026/hp This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/09/2026 at 11:34:27