Karnataka High Court
M/S Techser Power Solutions Pvt Ltd vs Government E Marketplace (Gem Portal) on 30 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:24460
WP No. 7649 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 7649 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S TECHSER POWER SOLUTIONS PVT LTD
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
TECHSER HOUSE 12/1
MES RING ROAD
5TH CROSS, SHARADAMBANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 013.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
2. MR. M SURESH
S/O K.B. MAHADEVA RAO
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
DIRECTOR
Digitally M/S TEACHSER TOWER SOLUTIONS PVT LTD
signed by OFFICE AT TEACHSER HOUSE 12/1
CHAITHRA A
MES RING ROAD, 5TH CROSS, SHARADAMBANAGAR
Location: BENGALURU - 560 013.
HIGH
COURT OF ...PETITIONERS
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. MANU KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. DEVARAJA L, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT E MARKETPLACE (GEM PORTAL)
2ND FLOOR JEEVAN TARA BUILDING
5-SANSAD MARG, NEAR PATEL CHOWK
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:24460
WP No. 7649 of 2026
HC-KAR
2. MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
VANIJYA BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 011.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARAVIND KAMATH, ASG FOR
SRI. MUKUND PRASAD, CGSC)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 17.02.2026 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1 SUSPENDING THE PETITIONER NO. 1 AS
TEMPORARY MORATORIUM FROM 17.02.2026 TO 03.04.2026
IN RESPECT PETITIONER NO.1 PRODUCT BEARING ID
NO.5116877- 86711385086-CAT (ANNEXURE-A), IN RESPECT
PETITIONER NO.1 PRODUCT BEARING ID NO.5116877-
83599923008-CAT (ANNEXURE-A1), IN RESPECT PETITIONER
NO.1 PRODUCT BEARING ID NO.5116877-93655256193-CAT
(ANNEXURE-A2), IN RESPECT PETITIONER NO.1 PRODUCT
BEARING ID NO.5116877-56637869694-CAT (ANNEXURE-A3),
IN RESPECT PETITIONER NO.1 PRODUCT BEARING ID
NO.5116877-14510235917-CAT (ANNEXURE- A4) AND IN
RESPECT PETITIONER NO.1 PRODUCT BEARING ID
NO.5116877-76093577816-CAT (ANNEXURE-A5) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.04.2026, THIS DAY ORDER
WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CAV ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed calling in question
the order dated 17.02.2026 passed by respondent No.1,
whereby the petitioner-company has been subjected to a
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:24460
WP No. 7649 of 2026
HC-KAR
temporary moratorium from 17.02.2026 to 03.04.2026 in
respect of six products listed on the Government e-
Marketplace (GeM) portal.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
Petitioner No.1 is a company registered as a seller on
the GeM portal and is stated to be an Original Equipment
Manufacturer (OEM) dealing in power conditioning
products, particularly UPS systems, besides acting as a
reseller of batteries, IT and telecom solutions. It is
asserted that the petitioners execute orders exceeding ₹1
Crore on a monthly basis.
3. The grievance of the petitioners arises out of
repeated actions initiated by respondent No.1 on account
of the use of the expression "buyback" in product titles
uploaded by the petitioners. The first instance relates to a
product uploaded on 10.09.2024 titled "Exide EL 150
WITH BUYBACK OF OLD BATTERY", which, after due
verification, came to be approved and listed by respondent
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:24460
WP No. 7649 of 2026
HC-KAR
No.1. However, on 15.12.2025, the said listing was
flagged on the ground that the term "buyback" was
reflected in the product specification. The petitioner
responded on 20.12.2025 and sought deletion. A
temporary moratorium was imposed from 20.12.2025 to
19.01.2026.
4. The second instance pertains to another listing
dated 18.05.2024, titled "Exide EL 150 WITH BUYBACK",
which was similarly approved at the initial stage but later
flagged on 20.01.2026 for the very same reason. The
petitioner replied on 29.01.2026 explaining the usage of
the term. Notwithstanding the same, the impugned
moratorium from 17.02.2026 to 03.04.2026 came to be
imposed.
5. It is further borne out from the record that on
the very same day, i.e., 17.02.2026, the petitioner's
account has been subjected to similar moratorium orders
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:24460
WP No. 7649 of 2026
HC-KAR
in respect of five additional products (Annexures A1 to
A5), all arising out of the identical allegation.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would
contend that the products were duly verified and approved
before listing and that the alleged violation is at best
technical and classified as a "mild violation". It is further
contended that repeated imposition of moratorium is
arbitrary and disproportionate.
7. Per contra, learned ASG appearing for the
respondents would submit that the action is taken strictly
in terms of the GeM Incident Management Policy and that
the petitioner has indulged in repeated non-compliance
despite prior notifications, thereby justifying the impugned
action. It is also contended that an appellate remedy is
available under Clause 8 of the policy.
8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned ASG appearing for the respondents. Perused the
records. The question that arises for consideration is:
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:24460
WP No. 7649 of 2026
HC-KAR
"Whether the impugned orders imposing
temporary moratorium warrant interference
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?"
9. It is trite that the existence of an alternate
remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226. However, equally, it is well-
settled that this Court would be slow to interfere in
matters involving policy enforcement and regulatory
discipline, unless the action is shown to be manifestly
arbitrary, disproportionate, or without jurisdiction.
10. On perusal of the material on record, it is not in
dispute that the petitioners had repeatedly used the
expression "buyback" in the product titles, which was
found to be inconsistent with the cataloguing requirements
of the GeM portal. The records would further indicate that
the petitioners were notified of the defect in earlier
instances; the petitioners were afforded an opportunity to
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:24460
WP No. 7649 of 2026
HC-KAR
rectify the listings; and, despite such notifications, similar
infractions continued across multiple products.
11. The contention of the petitioners that the
listings were initially approved cannot, in the considered
view of this Court, absolve them of their continuing
obligation to comply with platform policies. Approval at the
initial stage does not confer a perpetual immunity against
subsequent scrutiny, particularly when the defect relates
to standardization and catalog discipline, which lies at the
core of the GeM framework.
12. The GeM portal is a structured public
procurement platform intended to ensure uniformity,
transparency, and comparability of products. The insertion
of expressions such as "buyback" in product titles, which
are not part of standardized specifications, introduces
ambiguity and conditionality, thereby defeating the very
object of the platform.
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:24460
WP No. 7649 of 2026
HC-KAR
13. It is true that the respondents have classified
the violation as a "mild violation". However, the
classification of the nature of violation cannot be viewed in
isolation. The frequency and repetition of the violation is a
relevant factor. A singular or isolated infraction may
warrant only a warning; however, repeated infractions,
despite notice, would justify escalation of action under the
policy framework.
14. In the present case, the material placed on
record clearly indicates that the petitioners have been
repeatedly flagged for the same violation, yet the non-
compliance has persisted across multiple product listings.
Therefore, the impugned action cannot be said to be
disproportionate merely on the ground that the violation is
categorized as mild.
15. The temporary moratorium imposed is time-
bound and does not amount to permanent debarment. It
operates as a regulatory measure to ensure compliance
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:24460
WP No. 7649 of 2026
HC-KAR
and discipline among sellers on the platform. In that view
of the matter, a 30-day moratorium, in the backdrop of
repeated infractions, cannot be said to be so excessive or
arbitrary as to warrant interference under Article 226.
16. The contention relating to civil consequences,
though not insignificant, cannot override the necessity of
maintaining integrity of the procurement process. A
balance has to be struck between individual commercial
interest and systemic discipline. The impugned action, in
the considered view of this Court, leans in favour of
maintaining such discipline.
17. Insofar as the availability of an alternate
remedy is concerned, though this Court has examined the
matter on merits, it is also evident that the GeM Incident
Management Policy provides for an appellate mechanism,
which the petitioners have not availed.
18. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:24460
WP No. 7649 of 2026
HC-KAR
the petitioners were found guilty of repeated infractions;
the petitioners continued non-compliance despite prior
notifications and therefore impugned action is regulatory,
time-bound, and proportionate in the facts of the case.
Accordingly, no case is made out for interference.
19. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition stands dismissed;
(ii) The impugned orders dated 17.02.2026 imposing temporary moratorium are upheld.
(iii) All pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3