A State-renewed blood-products licence remains valid pending Central approval for tender eligibility.

The appellant held a licence to manufacture blood products, originally valid until 31 March 2026. Before expiry, it applied for renewal; on 22 June 2026, the State Licensing Authority renewed the licence in Form 26-I for the period 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2031 and forwarded it to the Central Licence Approving Authority for approval. That approval remained pending when the appellant sought to participate in a State tender.

The tendering authority rejected the appellant’s technical bid because the renewed licence did not bear the Central Authority’s approval. The Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, and the appellant appealed.

Whether a licence renewed by the Licensing Authority under Form 26-I, with approval by the Central Licence Approving Authority still pending, was valid for satisfying the tender’s eligibility requirement.

Whether the tendering authority could disqualify the appellant where the tender required a licence approved by the “Licensing Authority,” rather than expressly requiring approval by the Central Licence Approving Authority.

Under Rule 21(b) of the Drugs Rules, 1945, the “Licensing Authority” is distinct from the “Central Licence Approving Authority,” whose definition appears in Rule 2(b).

Rule 122F(1) permits a licensee who applies for renewal before expiry to continue the relevant activities until orders on the application are communicated; Rules 122F(5) and 122F(6) set out the respective roles of the Licensing Authority and the Central Licence Approving Authority in processing and deciding renewal applications.

Rule 122H provides that a renewed licence in Form 26-I, unless sooner suspended or cancelled, is valid for five years from renewal.

The Court also construed Rule 68A, noting that amendments effective from 27 October 2017 omitted references to renewal in most of that rule, and treated it as concerning grant rather than renewal of licences.

Tender conditions must be applied according to their terms; the court should not add an eligibility requirement that the tender does not impose.

The Licensing Authority had inspected the appellant’s establishment, found the requirements satisfied, renewed the licence, and forwarded the relevant material for Central approval. The Central Authority had neither completed a further inspection nor rejected or suspended the renewal; its approval remained pending.

Read together, Rules 122F(1) and 122H supported the conclusion that the renewed licence remained operative while the renewal process was pending, unless suspended, cancelled, or revoked.

Further, the tender expressly referred to approval by the “Licensing Authority,” a defined authority distinct from the Central Approving Authority. The Court therefore declined to read into the tender a requirement for Central approval that its language did not state.

Disqualification solely because of the pending Central approval would penalise the appellant for delay by that authority and conflict with the statutory provision permitting continued operation during the pending renewal process.

It set aside the Single Judge’s order and the appellant’s disqualification, directed that the appellant’s financial bid be opened along with the other financial bids, and disposed of the appeal and application.