1 2025:CGHC:53579 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4588 of 2021 • M/s Tamanna Road Carrier, A Partnership Firm, Registered Under The Relevant Provisions Of Partnership Act, Through Its One Of The Partner Namely Shri Atul Bagga, S/o Late H. L. Bagga, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Main Road, Bagbahra, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. Food Corporation Of India, Through Its General Manager, Regional Office, Vidhan Sabha Road, Mowa, Pandari, District Raipur, Chattisgarh. 2. General Manager, Region, F.C.I., Regional Officer, Vidhan Sabha Road, Mowa, Pandari, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Assistant General Manager (Contract), Food Corporation Of India, Regional Officer, Vidhan Sabha Road, Mowa, Pandari, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. The Dispute/grievance Redressal Committee, Zonal Office, Food Corporation Of India, Through Its Executive Director, Grievance Redressal Committee, Food Corporation Of India, Borivali, Mumbai (Maharashtra). 5. Assistant General Manager (Contract) The Dispute/grievance Redressal Committee, Of India, Borivali, Mumbai, 3rd Floor, Dattapada Road, Rajendra Nagar, Borivali (East) (Maharashtra). ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shashwat Mishra, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate appears along with Mr. Prakhar Dashore, counsel. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 03/11/2025 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India by seeking following reliefs:- DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, quashing the impugned order dated 12.08.2021 (Annexure-P/1) passed by Assistant General Manager (Contract), Zonal Office (West) Mumbai and the GRC Respondent No.4 may kindly be directed to decide an adjudicate the dispute raised by the petitioner firm on its own merit after affording an opportunity to the petitioner firm, within a limited period of two months. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the impugned order dated 25.11.2021 passed by General Manager Region FCI and the higher authorities may further be directed to take disciplinary action against the respondent No.2 for passing the impugned order and interfering with Court proceedings. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a partnership firm and was awarded a contract in light of the NIT No. S&C/13/15/NIT/2020/01 dated 14.01.2020 for transportation of food grains from RTC Kargi Road to Latehar. The appointment order was issued in this regard on 15.04.2020 (Annexure-P/4). When certain penalties have been imposed upon the petitioner by the respondents, then petitioner firm filed a representation in this regard on 23.12.2020 (Annexure-P/6) stating that the penalty imposed upon it is arbitrary and illegal. He further submits that in light of the condition No. XII of the tender awarded in favour of the petitioner, if any dispute arises with respect to the contract, the dispute shall be preferred to the dispute/Grievance Redressal Committee (for short ‘GRC’), who has to decide the dispute. 3. In the case in hand, the representation/dispute raised by the petitioner was sent by the GRC to the General Manager, which is not permissible in light of 3 the conditions of the tender as stated above. Therefore, the impugned communication dated 12.08.2021 (Annexure-P/1), by which representation/dispute of the petitioner was placed before the respondent No.2/General Manager may be set aside. 4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that as there was no interim order in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No.2/General Manager vide order dated 25.11.2021, which is not challenged before this Court, therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner may not be granted. Be that as it may, penalty has rightly been imposed upon the petitioner in accordance with the conditions of the tender, as per clause XIV of the Contract as set off. 5. Replying to this, Mr. Mishra submits that when the order passed by the General Manager (Annexure-P/1) brought to the notice, the same was challenged by way of an amendment. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record carefully. 7. There is no dispute to the fact that the respondents have invited a tender for transportation of food grains from RTC Kargi Road to Latehar. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was a successful bidder in the said contract and was also awarded with the said work order. It appears that penalty was imposed upon the petitioner firm, which was agitated by the petitioner by filing a representation/dispute before the GRC. Perusal of Annexure-P/1 indicates that the same representation/dispute was forwarded to the respondent No.2/General Manager, which according to the condition No. XI of the tender could have not taken the decision on such representation. 4 Perusal of condition No. XI clearly indicates that it is the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) was only competent authority to take decision. 8. In view of the above, communication order dated 12.08.2021 (Annexure-P/1) and order dated 25.11.2021 (Annexure-P/12) are hereby quashed. 9. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.4/Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) for taking decision on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt/submission of copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge