1 2026:CGHC:2167-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5477 of 2021 Rusan Pharma Ltd. 58-D, Government Industrial Estate, Charkop, Kandivali (West), Mumbai-4000067, Maharashtra, India, Through- Its Authorised Signatory Narendra B. Mathur Son Of Shri R. B. Mathur, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of GH-12/50, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi- 110087 --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Through- Its Managing Director, Sector- 27, Housing Board, Complex, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.J.K.Rao, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14/01/2026 1. Heard Mr. C.J.K.Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s): “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 21.10.2021 (Annexure P/1) regarding blacklisting of the petitioner’s &rm and forfeiture of the security deposit amount. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the participation of petitioner, fairly in the advertised Tender and other forthcoming Tenders. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems &t and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition. 10.4 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 16.12.2021.” 3. The facts, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is a reputed Pharma Company since 1994 and have been producing amongst various drugs including Narcotic and other essential drugs viz. Buprenorphine (10 mcg) Transdermal patch, and is registered in India. The respondent No. 2 Coated e-Tender having was Tender No. 68M(R)/CGMSC/Drugs & Medicine/2019-20 Dated 7.03.2020. The respondent No.3 extended the time for submission of bid from time to time and Enally the last date to submit the bid extended upto 15.06.2020. 4. Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner participated in the bid process and submitted its on-line bid on 15.06.2020. The Enal summary sheet Cover A was opened on 3.02.2021. As per clause 4.2 of the Tender Document- VALIDITY OF BID- the bid shall be valid for a period of 120 days from the date of opening of Cover-A (Technical Bid) and prior to the expiry of the bid 3 validity, the Tender Inviting Authority may request the bidders to extend the validity for the further period as deemed Et. In the present case, the respondent No.2 after a lapse of 120 days opened the Enancial bid on 15.06.2021 almost after more than 45 days of the expiry of validity of the bid period i.e. 120 days. The petitioner was declared L-1 for the product code ND13A Buprenorphine 10mcg. As there was peak of the COVID-19 second wave and there was a complete Covid-19 lockdowns in the India during the period April to June, the petitioner expressed its inability speciEcally mentioning that while participating, the Company was having the raw material available but due to the prevailing pandemic situation and non availability of raw material, it would not we will not be able to cater to it and request to withdraw bid for item code ND13A Buprenorphine 10mcg vide letter dated 25.06.2021. The respondent No.2 satisEed with the reply did not initiate any action but surprisingly vide letter dated 19.08.2021, the respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the Erm may not be black listed a for a period of 3 years. 5. Mr. Rao further submits that a detailed reply to the show cause notice dated 19.08.2021 was Eled vide reply dated 30.08.2021 clearly stating that the Buprenorphine base is synthesized from the alkaloid of opium i.e. Thebaine and as per the strict Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances norms and the law of the Government of India for synthesis of any API manufactured from any of the essential Alkaloid such as Morphine, Thebaine, Codeine etc; for the domestic consumption, one is bound legally to source and purchase these alkaloids from the Government Opium and Alkaloid factories. Because of the COVID-19 the factories of Neemuch and Ghazipur 4 were as closed technically, the CCF/DOR/MOF/GOI will import the Thebaine from abroad and supply to Rusan. Even the Thebaine could not be imported till 28.08.2021 even though the import permit had been sent to the supplier. Inspite of the detailed reply the respondent No.2 blacklisted the petitioner company for a period of 3 years from participating in the forthcoming tenders of the Corporation and further forfeited the EMD amount vide order dated 21.10.2021. On 27.10.2021, the Ministry of Finance/Department of Revenue OHce of the Chief Controller Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Factories issued letter in regard to non-availability of Thebaine during 2021-21-Reg along with certiEcate clearly stating that due to COVID-19 restrictions both the opium factories were closed for about three months which resulted in loss of Thebaine and other alkaloids. Inspite of the submission of the above letters the respondents authorities did not revoke the order of blacklisting. Hence, the petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent No.1 on 28.10.2021 as per the terms of the tender document wherein the respondent No.1 called the petitioner on 07.12.2021 vide letter dated 02.12.2021. 6. Mr. Rao next submits that till date no action has been taken and because of the above inaction of the respondent authorities the petitioner is unable to participate in the Government tenders for the reason that as the petitioner Company is blacklisted in the Chhattisgarh. He lastly submits that at least the EMD amount which has been forfeited by the respondents may be returned back to the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that the contesting 5 party in this petition would be the respondent No. 2. 8. Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, relying on the return Eled by aHdavit Eled, submits that after considering the reply of the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 has passed the order in accordance with law. The petitioner was well aware of the facts about the availability of active pharmaceutical ingredients and thereafter the petitioner has participated in the bid after going through the terms and conditions of the tender clauses. After the petitioner being declared as L-1 and the petitioner has been communicated regarding as his L-1 and thereafter the petitioner cannot turn back and subjected to the terms and conditions of the tender clauses. Mr. Pradhan further submits that a review has been Eled before the answering respondent along with the documents, which were not Eled with the reply of the show cause notice and there is no provision of review in the tender condition clauses and therefore it was brought to the knowledge of petitioner there is no provision of review and the petitioner can avail the remedy of appeal before the appropriate authority and the petitioner has thereafter preferred the appeal, which has been dismissed vide order dated 16-12-2021. He lastly submits that even otherwise, this petition has become academic as the petitioner was blacklisted for a period of 3 years which has already come to an end. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. From perusal of the order dated 21.10.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 2, it transpires that the petitioner was blacklisted for a period of three years which has already come to an 6 end and as such, the issue of blacklisting has become academic and no fruitful purpose would be served if it is adjudicated upon and virtually, the petition has become infructuous. 11. Now, after expiry of three years, the petitioner can very well participate in any tender proceedings Coated by the Government or its instrumentalities and as such, this petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. So far as the issue of refund of the EMD amount is concerned, the petitioner may take recourse to law, if any, available to him. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.01.15 19:42:19 +0530