Mr. R. Krishnaamorthi Purushotam, Advocate v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

$~100 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16802/2025, CM APPL. 69080/2025 M/S GRAYEYE IT SYSTEMS PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R. Krishnaamorthi Purushotam, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shashank Dixit, CGSC along with Mr. Arvind, GP, Advocates for R-1. Ms. Shweta Bharti, Ms. Tajaswini Chandrashekhar, Mr. Jatin Chaddha and Ms. Sanskruti Jinwal, Advocates for R-2/GeM. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA % 10.11.2025 O R D E R 1. The petitioner is a company incorporated in the year 2016, engaged in the manufacturing of information technology and electronic products under the brand name “GRAYT”. 2. The petitioner is registered as an MSME enterprise under the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME). It is also recognized as a Startup Company under the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Ministry of Commerce and Industry. 3. It is stated that the petitioner manufactures a range of IT and electronic products across India and the company employs over 155 skilled workers and has been a compliant and verified seller on the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) platform since registration. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner was granted ‘Star Rating This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/11/2025 at 12:58:34 Certificates’ by ‘Radiance Quality Certifications’ [equivalent to the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE)] on 12.04.2024 for smart televisions. 5. On the basis of the said certifications, GeM granted Brand Approval for Smart Televisions and Interactive Flat Panels in November, 2024. Thereafter, in July, 2025, the petitioner was granted approval for other products, inter alia, desktop computers, laptops, and all-in-one PCs. 6. Pursuant to these approvals, vendor assessments were conducted by Rail India Technical and Economic Service (RITES), a Government of India enterprise, for all product categories and each product category underwent factory inspections, document verifications, and quality testing. It is also stated that the assessments were completed and approved for different product ranges, and access to the OEM Dashboard on GeM was granted to the petitioner for uploading and managing product catalogues. 7. It is further stated that despite the above approvals and valid certifications, the respondent no.2/GeM issued several show cause notices dated 03.09.2025 alleging that the petitioner’s smart television listings were without valid Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) Star Rating Certificates, as per the data available on the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) website. 8. The petitioner submitted detailed replies dated 07.09.2025 clarifying that it possess valid ‘Radiance Quality Certifications’ (UK), which are equivalent to Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) Certifications. Importantly, it was pointed out that based on the Radiance Quality Certifications, the petitioner applied for Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) Recognition which was also granted on 09.10.2025. 9. Despite this, the respondent no.2 (GeM) passed the impugned orders dated 15.10.2025, whereby, the concerned catalogues of the petitioner were This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/11/2025 at 12:58:34 suspended. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned suspension orders are wholly arbitrary and misconceived inasmuch as they have been passed even qua the products other than smart televisions. 11. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioner’s appeals against the impugned suspension orders have not been considered at all even though the same was filed within time. 12. It is pointed out that the impugned action was taken on 15.10.2025 and the appeals came to be filed well before the expiry of prescribed period of limitation. However, the appeals came to be rejected on the misconceived ground that the same were belated. 13. It is further submitted that apart from the fact that the suspension orders cannot be extended to the products other than smart televisions, the concerned Authority has failed to take into account that the requisite BEE Certification is available with the petitioner based on the Radiance Quality Certifications (UK). 14. Respective counsel for the parties have been heard. 15. There is merit in the contention of the petitioner that the appeals filed by the petitioner were not belated and ought to have been considered by the concerned Authority as per the GeM Policy. 16. There is also prima facie merit in the contention that the suspension orders could not have been passed qua products other than smart televisions. Further, even with regard to smart televisions, it was incumbent on the concerned Authority to consider the contents of the petitioner’s replies to the show cause notices, wherein, the petitioner strongly refuted the allegation that it did not have the relevant certifications, which was the primary This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/11/2025 at 12:58:34 allegation against the petitioner. 17. Further, there was no occasion whatsoever to extend the suspension to products other than smart televisions. 18. In the circumstances, the following directions are issued: i. The appeals filed by the petitioner before the GeM [Annexure P-8 (colly)] are restored; ii. The Appellate Authority shall consider the same, in accordance with law and taking into account the contents of the petitioner’s reply to the show cause notices and also the averments made in the present writ petition. Let the aforesaid exercise be done by the Appellate Authority as expeditiously as possible; and iii. Pending conclusion of the aforesaid exercise, the impugned suspension order dated 15.10.2025 in Incident Nos.2239249, 2239261, 2239240, 2239220, 2239227 and 2239234, shall remain stayed. 19. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending application also stands disposed of. SACHIN DATTA, J NOVEMBER 10, 2025/r