Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010133662022 2025:GAU-AS:14420 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4591/2022 N E TRADE AND TRANSPORT AND ANR A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SREENAGAR, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI- 781005, DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SHRI NEENA SAIKIA. 2: NEENA SAIKIA DAUGHTER OF SRI PRANJIT SAIKIA PROPRIETOR OF N.E. TRADE AND TRANSPORT RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 3 LAKSHMI PATH R.G. BARUAH ROAD GUWAHATI- 781024 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM VERSUS FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS A STATUTORY BODY, ESTABLISHED UNDER THE FOOD CORPORATION ACT, 1964, HAVING ITS HEADQUARTERS AT NEW DELHI AND A REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI, G.S. ROAD, PALTANBAZAR, ABOVE FBB, MT TOWER (3RD FLOOR TO 5TH FLOOR), GUWAHATI, KAMRUP(METRO), ASSAM, PIN- 781008, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2:THE GENERAL MANAGER (CONTRACTS) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE (NE) G.S. ROAD G.L. PUBLICATION BUILDING ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. Page No.# 2/9 3:THE GENERAL MANAGER FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA ASSAM REGION G.S. ROAD PALTANBAZAR ABOVE FBB MT TOWER (3RD FLOOR TO 5TH FLOOR) GUWAHATI KAMRUP(METRO) ASSAM PIN- 781008. 4:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (CONTRACTS) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA ASSAM REGION G.S. ROAD PALTANBAZAR ABOVE FBB MT TOWER (3RD FLOOR TO 5TH FLOOR) GUWAHATI KAMRUP(METRO) ASSAM PIN- 781008 5:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (NE) ZONAL OFFICE NORTH-EAST ZONE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA G.S. ROAD G.L. PUBLICATION BUILDING ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 6:THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER FCI DISTRICT OFFICE GUWAHATI-8 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P P BARUAH, MR. R SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, F C I, Page No.# 3/9 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 28.10.2025 Heard Mr. P. P. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. K. Roy, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondent FCI, assisted by Mr. S. K. Chakraborty. 2. This writ petition have been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 06.10.2021, issued by the Executive Director (North East), Zonal Office, North-East Zone, FCI, Ulubari, Guwahati and also assailing the communication dated 11.06.2021, issued by the Assistant General Manager (Contract) for General Manager (R), FCI, Regional Office, Assam Region, Guwahati. 3. The petitioner had responded to a notice inviting tender issued by the FCI Regional Office, Assam Region, on 30.08.2019 and submitted his offer against the 5th item at Part B of the NIT, namely, “ PART-B (ROAD TRANSPORT CONTRACT) (USE RTC MTE) SL No. E-Tender No. Name of the work Estimated Value of Contract Earnest Money @ 2% Page No.# 4/9 (EVOC) of EVOC 5 S&C/2035/Assa m/NEF/2019/05 Transport Contract Ex FCI Siding Changsari (CFCC) to FSD Shillong via weighbridge, (Distance 122.4 kms) Rs 10,09,00,000/- Rs 20,18,000/- NB:- 1. The distances as stated above are indicative and shall be considered for Revision of Rates on account of any increase or decrease in diesel prices as per RTCMTF Clause XVIII, sub clause (b). No request for increase in quoted rate (s) PER MT shall be considered on the plea of diversion/Change in route from point to point on any account. All prospective bidders are advised to get fully acquainted with the distance before participating in the tender. Further for the RTC stated in the table above the rates should be quoted as Per MT basis for the entire distance. If rate is quoted otherwise i.e. PER MT PER KM, it shall be considered INVALID repeat INVALID. NB:- 2) * If the value of the contract is less than Rs 7,50,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crores & Fifty Lakhs), bidders without the requisite experience, can Participate subject to certain conditions. For other details regarding eligibility criteria, please see Point No. 3 of QUALIFICATION CONDITIONS of MTF. NB:-3) Security Deposit comprising of i0 @ of VOC (in the form of NEFT/RTGS/ECS) AND ii) @ 15% of VOC ( in the form of an irrevocable and unconditional Bank Guarantee issued by a ‘Scheduled Commercial Bank’ notified by RBI (excluding all Urban/Rural/State Co- Operative banks and Gramin Banks) will be Page No.# 5/9 intimated to the successful tenderer during the issuance of letter of acceptance accordingly.” 4. Being successful in the process, the petitioner was awarded the contract for regular Transport Ex FCI Siding Changsari to FSD Shillong via weighbridge for a period of 2 years by the order dated 10.10.2019. When the petitioner was carrying on his part of the contract, by an order dated 30.04.2021, the Government of Meghalaya issued a notification restricting the movement of goods laden vehicle on Umium Concrete bridge, directing all concerned to strictly maintain the gross weight of any goods laden vehicle plying over the Umium Bridge upto 20 MT only. With the restrictions so imposed by the Government of Meghalaya, the petitioner had to divert from the usual route being under taken for carrying out his part of the contract and had to take a longer route to see that the goods were delivered in accordance with the contract. This aspect of the matter, that the petitioner was taking a longer route was also in the knowledge of the respondent/FCI. By a letter dated 31.05.2021, the petitioner had made a request to the General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Guwahati to consider the fact that they were taking a longer route and had requested for taking necessary steps for reimbursement of the freight for extra distance covered by the trucks of the petitioner w.e.f May, 2021. 5. When this request for consideration of the extra freight was rejected by the Regional Office of the FCI vide the letter dated 11.06.2021, issued under the hands of the Assistant General Manager, Contract, the petitioner made a representation to the Executive Director, North East, requesting him to place the matter before the Dispute/Grievance Redressal Page No.# 6/9 Committee, Zonal Office of the North-East Zone, FCI, Guwahati for taking into account the change of route from the earlier notified route due to exceptional peculiar situation and to pass necessary orders on their demand for making good the financial loss suffered by the petitioner. The Grievance Redressal Committee/Food Corporation of India, thereafter, assembled on 06.10.2021 and an order was passed under the signatures of the Executive Director, North-East, on behalf of the Grievance Redressal Committee on 06.10.2021, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 6. Mr. P. P. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had to make extra efforts to ensure that the contract for transportation of the goods of the FCI was made from the Siding Changsari to the FSD Shillong by taking alternative route which resulted in the petitioner having to take up extra financial burden. He submitted that it cannot be the case of the respondent/FCI that they were unaware of the prevailing situation or that the petitioner had done things more than necessary as required in the contract, not intending to do so gratuitously, and therefore, the FCI would be under obligation to make good, the loss incurred by the petitioner while going the extra mile. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the email communications issued from FSD Shillong to the Divisional Manager, Shillong with copies to the FSD Changsari, Assam and other Divisional Officers at Guwahati, informing them of the fact that the FCI trucks dispatched from Changsari to Shillong were held up at Umium Lake and as such, the Office at Guwahati was required to take necessary action to ensure that the supply to the FSD Shillong did not suffer. He, therefore, prayed that the order dated 06.10.2021, issued Page No.# 7/9 by the Executive Director, North-East on the basis of the views expressed by the Grievance Redressal Committee deserves interference of this Court and necessary orders may be passed for compensating the petitioner in accordance with Law. 8. Mr. P. K. Roy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Food Corporation of India, on the other hand, has drawn attention of this Court to the tender conditions to emphasize that it was specifically made known to all participating Bidders that the distances as stated in the notice inviting tender were only indicative and no request for increase in quoted rate shall be entertained on the plea of diversion or change in route from point to point on any account. Mr. Roy, learned Senior Counsel has drawn our attention to the model tender form for road transport contract, which is the part of the contract entered into by the petitioner, whereas at Clause 20, it has been provided that for any dispute arising out of an action upon the contract, the same would be referred to the Dispute/Grievance Redressal Committed constituted and functional under the Zonal Office of the Corporation and if any disputes remain thereafter, the same will be settled in the Court of law within competent jurisdiction. Accordingly, it has been submitted that since the grievances of the petitioner have been taken care of by the order dated 06.10.2021, which was admittedly passed on the views expressed by the Grievance Redressal Committee, any further grievance that the petitioner may have has to be considered as per the appropriate provisions of law relating to compensation etc. and need not be entertained by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, more so, when an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. Page No.# 8/9 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. There is not dispute of the fact that the petitioner had entered into a contact pursuant to the NIT dated 30.08.2019 and it is also not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner had to take an alternate route other than the one which was ordinarily been used for supplying the goods from Changsari to Shillong. 10. The submissions of Mr. P. P. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner regarding the application of provisions of Section 70 to such a contract and the claim of the petitioner to be compensated for work allegedly done over and above what was required to be done under the contract would require a consideration by a forum of law, which would be competent to take appropriate evidence and decide on the quantum of compensation that may be required to be adjudicated. 11. Mr. P. P. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in his usual fairness has submitted that the orders passed by the Executive Director North-East would required to be assailed in an appropriate forum of law as required under the contract. 12. In view of the discussions hereinabove, and the consensus arrived at the issues raised in this writ petition are not adjudicated upon and closed allowing liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court to raise his grievances against the order dated 06.10.2021 and against any other order in relation to this contract, which was taken into consideration by the GRC. If any such approach to a Civil Court is undertaken by the petitioner, the question of limitation of such approach shall be governed by the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 since the petition has been pursuing his cause in Page No.# 9/9 this Court. 13. The writ petition accordingly disposed of. No Costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant