Life Line Security System v. Government E-Marketplace

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner - Life Line Security System, which is a registered service provider on the Government e-Marketplace (‘GEM’), Respondent No. 2 which is a national public procurement portal. The said portal enlists various goods and service providers, who may be used for public procurement by most government agencies including Ministries, PSUs, Autonomous Institutions etc.

3. The claim of the Petitioner is that it was registered for providing various services in the defence sector on the GEM portal. It has been registered in the GEM portal since the last several years. Recently sometime between May to November, 2022, one of the suppliers had raised issue qua the Petitioner in terms of the supplies. However, the said issue was resolved with the said supplier. It has been noticed that another question was raised in respect of some acceptance certificate by Karnataka police, which was also reflected on GEM portal. Due to these questions, which have not been reflected as resolved, on the portal, the account of the Petitioner has been suspended by the Respondent. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the suspension and has preferred an appeal in respect of the suspension on 24th November, 2022 as per the Incident Management policy issued by GEM on 6th April,

2022.

4. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has several pending orders including a bulk order of about Rs. 22 crores and if its account remains suspended and is not activated, it will suffer severe and irreparable loss.

5. Ld. counsel for the Respondent draws the attention of the Court towards the clause 8 of the Incident Management Policy of GEM which provides for appeal remedies. He submits that the appeal having been filed by the Petitioner, the Respondent would consider the same and pass orders in accordance with the policy.

6. The GeM portal is extremely crucial for providers of goods and services to the public sector. Suspension of an account on the GeM portal can have deleterious consequences and can hamper one’s business considerably. The Petitioner has already filed an Appeal under Clause 8. The same deserves to be considered forthwith. Considering the nature of the matter and the fact that the Petitioner’s business has been adversely affected over an issue which already stands resolved, the following directions are issued: a) The appeal of the Petitioner shall be decided within one week. If any documents/clarifications are required by the Respondent from the Petitioner, the same shall be sought through email, if required. b) If the Respondent deems it appropriate to grant personal hearing to the Petitioner, it may do so and decide the appeal. c) The decision shall be taken within one week. In the meantime, the Petitioner’s account should not be suspended and the Petitioner shall be permitted to carry out its regular activities on the GeM portal. d) If the appeal is decided against the Petitioner, 2 weeks’ time shall be granted to the Petitioner to seek remedy in accordance with the law before the orders are given effect to.

7. The petition, along with all pending applications, is disposed of in the above terms.

8. Copy of the order be given dasti under the signature of the Court Master.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE DECEMBER 1, 2022/dk/am