$~63

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 6860/2025 and CM APPL. 31089/2025, CM APPL.

58283/2025

PANACEA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES

PVT. LTD .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Adarsh Tripathi, Mr. Nitin Chaudhary, Mr. Vikram Singh Baid,

and Mr. Ajitesh Garg, Advs.

versus

1.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ARMED FORCES MEDICAL

SERVICES (DGAFMS) .....Respondent

Through: Mr Vikram Jetly CGSC with Ms

Shreya Jetly, Advs.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 12.01.2026

1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the debarment order dated

25.04.2024 issued by the respondent.

2. The petitioner claims to be a manufacturer of radiotherapy and radiology equipment. The respondent had placed supply orders for certain equipments i.e. ‘Cobalt 60 Teletherapy Units with Treatment Planning System MLC’, which were to be delivered within a period of 270 days. According to respondent, there was a delay in the same and at the request of the petitioner, extensions were granted. On 26.12.2023, a show-cause notice for punitive action was issued by the respondent against the petitioner, and

meetings were conducted.

3. According to respondent, despite the extensions, since the installation and commissioning of the equipment did not take place, therefore, the competent authority decided to debar the petitioner for two years from the date of the debarment order dated 24.05.2024.

4. Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner points out various facts and circumstances to indicate as to why the order dated

24.05.2024 is illegal and arbitrary.

5. The impugned order has been sought to be justified by Mr. Vikram Jetly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. He submits that the reply of the petitioner was duly considered before passing of the impugned order. He also points out that various meetings were held and deadline was further extended, and despite the same, the petitioner did not meet the requirement under the work order. He further submits that the respondents were left with no option except to pass the impugned order.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the order.

7. For the sake of clarity, the debarment order dated 24.05.2024 is extracted as under:

“ DEBARMENT OF FIRM FROM BIDDING

1. Reference:-

(a) This Office AT/SO No 2318 dated 28 Jun 2021 and AT/SO No 2325 dated 01 Sep 2021 vide which supply orders for installation & commissioning of Qty 03 (three) of PVMS No 221547 Cobalt 60 Teletherapy unit with Treatment Planning System, MLC, Accessories &

Peripherals was placed.

(b) This office letter No 9328/20/2019-20/DGAFMS/DG-2S/TE- 1408(RT)/AT-2318 dated 26 Dec 2023 vide which a Show Cause Notice was served upon your firm.

(c) This office letter No 9328/20/2019-20/DGAFMS/DG-2S/TE-1408 (RT)/AT-2318 dated 18 Jan 2024 vide which your firm was advised to install the equipment at all 03 consignee hospitals within 02 Mar 2024.

(d) These office emails dated 06 May 2024 vide which Minutes of Meeting held on 05 Apr 2024 have been forwarded.

(e) Your office replies forwarded vide DPT/04/2024-25/C/023 dated 15 Apr 2024 and DPT/04/2024-25/C/078 dated 09 May 2024.

2. Your firm has not been able to install & commission the equipment PVMS No 221547 Cobalt 60 Teletherapy Unit with Treatment Planning System, MLC, Accessories & Pheripherals at the 03 (three) consignee hospitals till date.

3. The Competent Authority has perused your replies forwarded vide your letter at Para 1 (e) above & has not agreed to your contention.

4. In view of the above, the Competent Authority has invoked ‘Debarment of your firm from Bidding’ as per Para 5 of Annexure to Ministry of Finance, Procurement Policy Division OM No F.1/20/2018-PPD dated 02 Nov 2021.

5. The debarment will be effective upto 02 (two) years from the date of signing of this letter. Your firm & its successors are debarred from participating in any procurement process initiated or published by O/o DGAFMS or its medical units.”

8. A perus