An unapproved renewed blood-products licence does not satisfy tender eligibility requirements.

The State invited tenders for collection of surplus Fresh Frozen Plasma, requiring bidders to hold a valid licence for manufacturing plasma-derived products approved by the Licensing Authority.

The petitioner’s earlier licence, which bore the Central Licence Approving Authority’s endorsement, expired on 31 March 2026.

The petitioner had applied for renewal on 10 November 2025; on 22 June 2026, the State Licensing Authority issued a renewal certificate in Form 26-I, effective from 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2031, and forwarded the renewal documents to the Central Licence Approving Authority for approval.

The petitioner submitted the renewal certificate in the tender process, but the central approval remained pending.

Its technical bid was rejected, and the petitioner challenged that rejection by writ petition.

1. Whether the respondents could reject the petitioner’s technical bid because its renewed licence had not yet been approved by the Central Licence Approving Authority.

2. Whether the State Licensing Authority’s renewal certificate, without that central approval, met the tender’s eligibility requirement for a licence approved by the Licensing Authority.

Clause 4(a) of the tender required a valid licence for manufacturing plasma-derived products and an attested copy of a licence approved by the Licensing Authority.

Under Rules 68-A and 122F of the Drugs Rules, 1945, the Licensing Authority verifies the application and forwards its report and the licence documents to the Central Licence Approving Authority; the central authority may grant or renew the licence, or reject the application for recorded reasons.

Rule 122F’s renewal procedure therefore requires central approval before the renewal is granted.

Rule 81, as described by the Court, also contemplates consideration by the Licensing Authority or Central Licence Approving Authority and issuance or rejection of a licence based on satisfaction that the applicable requirements are met.

The Court found that the State Licensing Authority had issued the petitioner’s Form 26-I certificate but had also forwarded it to the Central Licence Approving Authority for approval, which remained pending.

The governing rules assigned the central authority the decision-making role in granting or renewing the licence, including the power to reject an application notwithstanding the State Licensing Authority’s report.

Because the petitioner’s renewal had not received that approval, the certificate did not satisfy the tender requirement as the Court construed it.

The Court accordingly found no illegality in the technical disqualification.

The writ petition was dismissed.