The Ayurvedic Drug Manufacturers' Association (ADMA) has urged the department of Ayush to do away with the turnover criterion fixed by the department of Ayush for the ayurvedic manufacturers for participating in government tenders. Instead, it has asked the department of Ayush to fix quality parameters as criteria.
The department of Ayush has, in its tender notice announced recently, said that the ayurvedic manufacturers with more than Rs five crore turnover in the domestic market can only become eligible to participate in the government tenders. There are hundreds of small ayurvedic manufacturers in the country who are totally dependent on government supply for their survival. These units will be hit hard by the decision.
Terming the decision of the department of Ayush as discriminatory against the interest of the small ayurvedic units in the country, ADMA general secretary Ranjit Puranik said that the government should reconsider the decision to fix the turnover criterion for participating in the government tenders. Instead the government should consider quality parameters as criteria for participating in government tenders. "It is a discriminatory decision which will go against the interest of hundreds of small ayurvedic units in the country", Puranik said. The ADMA will soon take up the issue with the department of Ayush urging it to reconsider the decision.
Puranik argued that there are several small ayurvedic units in the country, which have been surviving on government supply for decades. These units, which are manufacturing products as per the Schedule T standards, will be hit hard and their survival will be in jeopardy. If the government's intention is to encourage quality products, the government can fix Schedule T certification as the criterion for participating in the tenders. But, making the turnover criterion for participating in tenders will only help wipe out a large number of small units from the scene, Puranik rued.
He said ayurvedic industry is mostly consisted of small and micro units and the insistence on turnover criterion is totally wrong.