Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010074282024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/18/2025 THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN-110006 2: THE GENERAL MANAGER (REGIONAL) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE, ASSAM REGION PALTANBAZAR, GUWAHATI ASSAM, PIN-781008 3: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA DIVISIONAL OFFICE NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 78700 VERSUS M/S NIT TRADERS HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT G.C. ROAD, WAKAF BUILDING, TEZPUR, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI DIGANTAJIT BARUAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE LAKHI PRASAD BARUAH, R/O G.C. ROAD, WAKAF BUILDING, TEZPUR, DIST-SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784001 Page No.# 2/4 For the appellants : Mr. B.K. Singh Ms. S. Sarma, Advocates For the respondent : Mr. A.C. Borbora, Sr. Advocate Ms. N. Dey, Advocate – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN 28-05-2025 (Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.) This writ appeal is preferred by the appellants being aggrieved with the order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 5986/2021. 2. The only effective ground taken in the writ appeal is that the learned Single Judge has set aside the demand of Rs.23,81,420/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty only) on the ground that prior to raising such demand, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the sole respondent/writ petitioner. However, the learned Single Judge has not granted any liberty to the appellants to proceed against the sole respondents while providing opportunity of hearing to it in accordance with law. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants and the sole respondent entered into a contract in respect of transportation of food grains from one destination to other. After the contract was over, the appellants raised a demand of Rs.23,81,420/- which, according to the appellants, was given to the respondent in excess. Being aggrieved with the said demand, the sole Page No.# 3/4 respondent approached the Writ Court and the Writ Court has allowed the writ petition vide the impugned order solely on the ground that before raising such demand, no show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality in setting aside the demand raised by the appellants against the sole respondent without providing any opportunity of hearing to it. The learned Single Judge has further ordered for releasing the security deposit, bank guarantee and earnest money, if kept withheld, to the sole respondent in accordance with law. We are of the view that though the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the demand on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was granted, but in that case, it should have been kept open for the appellants to proceed against the respondent for realising the demand, if any, after providing opportunity of hearing to it in accordance with law. 5. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is affirmed. However, the appellants shall be at liberty to proceed against the respondent only after providing fair opportunity of hearing to it in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, this writ appeal is disposed of affirming the order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 5986/2021 with the above modification. 7. However, this order will not preclude the sole respondent to take recourse Page No.# 4/4 of appropriate remedy available to it for compliance of the direction given in paragraph 19 of the impugned order regarding release of the security deposit, bank guarantee and earnest money, if kept withheld, in accordance with law. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant