Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The facts leading up to the passage of the impugned order and the petitioner's objection to it thereof are as follows:

a. The petitioner, Lava International Limited with registered office at B-14, House-2, Basement, Shivlok Commercial Complex, Delhi 110015, limited is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing Mobile Handsets in India. b. The respondent No. 1, Government E-market place (GeM), under Ministry of Commerce and Industry, 2nd Floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001was established via official gazette notification dated 08.12.2017 with the aim of facilitating online procurement of Goods and Services required by various Government Departments, Organisations and PSUs using tools such as e-bidding, reverse e-auction and demand aggregation. The Respondent No. 1 platform operates via initial registration and creation of self-filled Product Catalogues by manufacturers and retailers of various goods and services as 'sellers' on the GeM portal, thereby allowing them to display their products on the portal, based on which the government entities float procurement tenders for their desired goods and services, inviting bids from the registered GeM sellers, followed by subsequent scrutiny and documentation before actual purchase. The Respondent No. 2, GeM Admin, is the concerned in-charge of Respondent No. 1. c. It is stated that the petitioner on 13.03.2023 & on 19.04.2023 created product catalogues for Mobile Headsets, namely, Yuva 2 Pro and Lava Blaze Pro respectively, on the GeM Portal. The petitioner correctly filled up the 'product description' column of the catalogues with 'Android 12 OS' as the products Operating Software, however, due to inadvertent typographical human error, the petitioner at the drop-down menu of the 'operating system' column of the catalogues form clicked the option 'iOS 10 or higher'.

e. The product Admin of Respondent No. 1 thereby, on 01.06.2023, marked a deviation on the petitioner's products and an automatic message was uploaded on the 'incident' section of the Dashboard of the petitioner's GeM account, affording 48 hours to upload relevant documents and state the facts to defend the deviation highlighted. Subsequently, on 05.06.2023 and 06.06.2023, two incident messages were again uploaded on the 'incident' section of the petitioner's GeM account directing the petitioners to upload relevant documents and / or state relevant facts defending the deviation within a time period of 24 hours. f. It is stated that due to no response from the petitioner, the above incident was escalated to the GeM Admin as on 07.06.2023 classifying the severity of the offence to 'Grave', subsequent to which, an automated Show Cause notice dated 07.06.2023 was issued to the petitioner, alleging the submission of 'fake documents or false statements' and directing the petitioner to provide a reply within 5 days of issuance. It is stated that on the same day dated 07.06.2023, the petitioner responded to the notice, specifying the selection of 'iOS 10' in the Operating Service column instead of 'Andrioid 12 OS' was purely on account of human error and expressed their willingness to take corrective action by uploading the corrected version of the product.

3. It is stated by the petitioner that the mistaken selection of the Operating System is purely on account of human error and that under the Incidental Management Policy of the Government E-Marketplace, such an error ought to be classified as a 'mild deviation' as per Para 3.1, applicable for deviations involving 'listing the products/services not in relevant categories and/ or listing the same with vague/ conflicting product specifications/ details and irrelevant photographs etc. by Original Equipment Manufacturers', penalty for which involves taking corrective action by seller/service provider/buyer. It is further stated that the IRN: 1617677 pertaining to Yuva 2 Pro and IRN: 1617676 pertaining to Lava Blaze Pro, both dated 07.06.2023, categorized the severity of the offense as 'grave' meaning those deviations adversely impacting the reputation and credibility of the GeM Platform, which keeping in mind the present facts of the case is a wrong categorization, in violation of the Incidental Management Policy Guidelines. It is further stated that the deviation in the product catalogue could not have caused any loss to the government entity, as the deviation took place at the pre-contract stage before the commencement of any tender/bid process issued. It is also contended that penalties involving suspension of the seller's account for a period of 60 days as done in the present case, as per Para 3.2 to 3.4 of the Guidelines under the Incidental Management Policy, isfor 'grave offences', which should not be applicable here.

6. This Court on 13.07.2023 directed the Respondents to file their counter affidavit. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent.

7. The Respondents in their counter dated 17.07.2023 stated that Incidental Management policy of the Government E-Market Place was brought about to maintain the trust and integrity of the portal. It is stated that as per the Incidental Management Policy Clause 3.4, 'false statements' are treated as 'grave offences' as done in the present case because the wrong operating software selection made by the Petitioner in the drop down menu regarding product specifications has severe implications which may result in incorrect search results in the available product catalogues on the GeM portal. It also causes incorrect selection which would amount to misleading buyers and raising questions over the credibility of the platform. It was also contended that this would amount to GeM allowing sellers with incorrect product specifications to participate in bids floated by buyer organizations and when subsequently notified may cause wastage of procurement time and resources for the buyer. It was further contended that the said 'false statements' were made by the petitioner on two different occasions for two different products namely Peititoner's phone model 'Yuva' and 'Blaze', one on 13.03.2021 and another one on 19.04.2023 and that it could not be construed as a human error because the same could not be repeated at two instances.