$~119 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 963/2026 and CM APPL. 4658-4661/2026 M/S SWASTIK BOOT FACTORY .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Suriti Chowdhary, Ms. Abiha Zaidi, Mr. Pritam Raman Giriya, Ms. Arushi, Ms. Tanya Sharma and Mr.

Bhumitra Dubey, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rohan Jaitley, CGSC with Mr.

Dev Pratap Shahi, GP, Mr. Varun Pratap Singh and Mr. Yogya Bhati, Advocates along with DC JAG Deeptiman, ITBP.

Mr. Siddhartha Patnaik, Mr. Ankit Konwar and Ms. Subhashni Kumari, Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 22.01.2026

1. The impugned communication is assailed by the petitioner essentially on the ground that the same is non-speaking and does not deal with the petitioner’s reply.

2. The petitioner is a registered Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise (MSME). It claims to be engaged in manufacturing and supply of leather footwear, including tactical safety boots, to various government departments and public sector undertakings. The Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal, impleaded through respondent no.1 – Union of India, is responsible for the operational management and enforcement of policies including the initiation of system driven, punitive action against sellers. The petitioner claims to be duly registered with GeM portal.

3. By the impugned system generated communication, the petitioner’s account had been suspended in the GeM portal for a period of 30 days. The petitioner, therefore, is unable to participate in any future tenders.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 justifies the action and submits that the petitioner was duly heard and his response was considered. Therefore, he submits that there is no illegality in the impugned communication.

5. For the sake of clarity, the system generated suspension order placed on record is extracted as under:

"Government e- Marketplace Dear Sir/Madam, Please note that in accordance with the GeM Incident Management policy and as decided by Competent Authority with regard to incident number 2309849, the transactions from your GeM account have been suspended for transaction for a period of 30 days starting from 14- Jan-2026 and ending on 13-Feb-2026. This is due to Listing the Products / Services in wrong specifications/image for Product id-

5116877-46750501120-cat.

During such time your carted products(if any), will be removed from cart(s) and you will not be able to:

1) Enter into fresh transactions.

2) Upload products.

3) Participate in bids/RA. If already participated in the ongoing bids, your bids/RA will be withdrawn.

4) Carted products will be taken out.

However, you will be able to complete the transactions already finalized, such as delivery, payment receipt etc.

Regards, GeM Admin”

6. The Court, however, on perusal of the impugned communication, finds that there does not seem to be any reason assigned by respondent no.1, as to why the petitioner’s response was not acceptable. The action has been taken pursuant to incident no. 2309849. It appears that due to the alleged listing of the Products/Services in the wrong specifications/image, the action was taken.

7. The petitioner explains various circumstances as to why such an action was not necessary. However, how respondent no.1 has considered the aforesaid submissions is conspicuously missing from the communication.

8. The Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Masood Ahmed Khan ¹ has held that the face of an order passed by a quasi- judicial authority, or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak and cannot remain opaque like the inscrutable face of a Sphinx.

9. In view thereof, the submission of the petitioner must be adequately considered by respondent No.1, who seeks to take action against the petitioner.

10. Consequently, the Court finds that the impugned communication is non-speaking and therefore, deserves to be set aside on this short ground. However, liberty will have to be gr