Mr. Riponjyoti Sarmah @ Ripon Sarmah vs The Union Of India And Ors

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. 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
Pradip Kumar Kalita
Comparing Assistant
Digitally signed by Pradip Kumar Kalita
Date: 2026.06.26 14:50:59 +05'30'