1 CGHC010303672021 2026:CGHC:41795 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4700 of 2021 1 - 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., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Food Corporation Of India Through Its General Manager, Regional Office, Vidhan Sabha Road, Mowa, Pandari, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - General Manager Region, F.C.I., Regional Office, Vidhan Sabha Road, Mowa, Pandari, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Assistant General Manager (Contract) Food Corporation Of India, Regional Office, Vidhan Sabha Road, Mowa, Pandari, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., 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., District : Mumbai, Maharashtra 2 5 - Assistant General Manager (Contract) The Dispute / Grievance Redressal Committee, Zonal Office (West), Food Corporation Of India, Borivali, Mumbai, 3rd Floor, Dattapada Road, Rajendra Nagar, Borivali (East) Maharashtra. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate For respondent-FCI :- Ms. Swati Rani Saraf, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25.09.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking following reliefs:- “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 (Annex.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. 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. 3 3] That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue as writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the 19-06-26 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 the interfering with court proceedings.” 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition stands squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in WPC No. 4588 of 2021 (M/s Tamanna Road Carrier vs. Food Corporation of India and Others) decided on 03.11.2025. It is prayed that the present writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the observations and findings recorded therein. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Since the grievance of the petitioner is identical to the one considered in WPC No. 4588 of 2021 (M/s Tamanna Road Carrier vs. Food Corporation of India and Others) decided on 03.11.2025, and the petitioner in the present case is also seeking the same relief, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of and in line with the aforesaid order passed by this Court. 4 The aforesaid case was disposed of in the following terms and the relevant paragraphs are reproduced below:– “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. Perusal of condition No. XI clearly indicates that it is the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRO) 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 5 from the date of receipt/submission of copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of.” 5. No order as to cost(s). sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha