Gauhati High Court
G B Chowdhury Holdings Pvt Ltd vs The Food Corporation Of India And 2 Ors on 20 April, 2026
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/10
GAHC010240132022
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7577/2022
G B CHOWDHURY HOLDINGS PVT LTD
A COMPANY REGD. UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGD.
OFFICE AT SARUMOTORIA, OPPOSITE DISPUR CAPITAL COMPLEX,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, SMT. SUJATA GURING
CHOWDHURY.
VERSUS
THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, BARAKHAMBA
ROAD, NEW DELHI-06.
2:GENERAL MANAGER (REGION)
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
REGIONAL OFFICE
ASSAM REGION
GUWAHATI-781008.
3:EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (NE)
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
ZONAL OFFICE
(NE)
G.S. ROAD
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-781007
Page No.# 2/10
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. Chakraborty, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. K. Singh, SC, FCI
Date on which judgment is reserved : NA
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 20.04.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the
Operative part of the judgment? : NA
Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced? : Yes
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. B. K. Singh, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Food Corporation of India.
2. The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the report of the
Grievance Redressal Committee dated 01.09.2022 thereby
rejecting the petitioner’s Appeal and the consequential order
dated 20.09.2022 passed by the Respondent No.3.
3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ
petition are that the Petitioner herein is a contractor engaged in
the business of transportation works under the Food Corporation
Page No.# 3/10
of India. A Notice Inviting E-Tender was issued on 11.06.2021
from eligible contractors pertaining to handling and transport
contract as well as for road transport contract. The Petitioner
being interested, participated in the said Notice Inviting E-Tender
for the road transport contract for the work, i.e. Road Transport
Contract Ex-FCI Changsari (CFCC) to FSD Shillong via
Weighbridge.
4. It is very pertinent to take note of that in the said Notice
Inviting E-Tender, and more particularly, the Note being NB:(1), it
was stipulated that there shall be no request for increase in
quoted rate(s) per MT on the plea of diversion/change in the
route from point to point on any account. The Petitioner being
successful in submission of its bid, was issued a Letter of
Acceptance on 29.09.2021 at the rate of Rs.1095/- per metric
ton for the entire distance Ex-FCI Siding Changsari (CFCC) to
FSD Shillong via Weighbridge on regular basis for the period of
two years.
5. It is the case of the Petitioner that on 04.05.2022, the
learned High Court of Meghalaya had directed the closure of the
Umiam Bridge to all vehicles in excess of 10 metric tons. The
resultant effect of the said order passed by the learned
Meghalaya High Court was issuance of an order on 11.05.2022
by the Superintendent of Police Ri-Bhoi District thereby
Page No.# 4/10
stipulating that the maximum permissible limit of Umiam Spill
Way Bridge should not exceed 10 metric tons. It is the case of
the Petitioner that the distance for which the Petitioner had
quoted its rate of Rs.1095/- per MT was taking into consideration
that the transportation would be made via the Umiam Bridge the
distance of which was 118.2 Kms. However, in view of the order
passed by the learned Meghalaya High Court and the
consequential directions issued by the Superintendent of Police,
Ri-Bhoi, the Petitioner had to take a different route, i.e. through
the Mawryngkneng and the resultant distance was 190 Kms. The
Petitioner out of fear that penalty would be imposed for not
going ahead with the transportation, fulfilled the terms of the
contract by carrying out transportation through the longer route
of 190 Kms. The Petitioner had to incur additional expenses on
account of the distance having enhanced, and as such, sought
for compensation on account of the additional distance. This
request made by the Petitioner was rejected by the Grievance
Redressal Committee vide the report dated 01.09.2022, and
subsequently, intimated by the Respondent No.3 vide an order
dated 20.09.2022. It is under such circumstances, the Petitioner
is before this Court.
6. The Respondents pursuant to the issuance of notice by this
Court had filed an affidavit-in-opposition thereby supporting the
Page No.# 5/10
report of the Grievance Redressal Committee as well as the
impugned order issued by Respondent No.3. It is the specific
contention of the Respondents in the affidavit-in-opposition that
the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting E-Tender were
absolutely clear that there would be no escalation on account of
diversion would be entertained. In addition to that, the
Respondents have also mentioned in their affidavit-in-opposition
that the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for additional
compensation was done so as per the contractual terms and
conditions and there was no illegality or arbitrariness for the
invocation of the public law remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution. It was also mentioned at paragraph No.18 of the
said affidavit-in-opposition that the Government of Meghalaya,
Transport Department had issued a Press Release dated
30.04.2021 pertaining to goods-laden vehicles plying over the
Umiam Concrete Bridge directing strict maintenance of a gross
weight of any goods-laden vehicles plying over the Umiam
Concrete Bridge upto 20 metric tons (one vehicle at a time). It
was further mentioned that the matter on restrictions on vehicles
plying over the Umiam Bridge by the Government of Meghalaya
was in news since long which was evident from the
Notifications/Press Releases issued from time to time by the
Government of Meghalaya. It was also mentioned that the Notice
Page No.# 6/10
Inviting E-Tender was issued on 11.06. 2021 and the
aforementioned facts existed and were known to the bidders
including the present Petitioner.
7. The Petitioner filed an affidavit-in-reply stating inter-alia that
the notices which have been referred at paragraph No.18 of the
affidavit-in-opposition permitted vehicles with 20 metric tons to
ply. However, on account of the orders passed by the learned
Meghalaya High Court, only vehicles less than 10 metric tons
were allowed to ply, and therefore, the fact that the Petitioner
was aware prior to submission of the bid in pursuance to the
Notice Inviting E-Tender dated 11.06.2021 was a misconceived
statement made in the affidavit-in-opposition. The Petitioner
further stated that the Respondent Authorities, being a State
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, has to act
fairly, reasonably and rationally, and therefore cannot be
permitted to deny the Petitioner the additional amount which the
Petitioner had to incur on account of the additional distance
which was beyond the control of the Petitioner.
8. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing
on behalf of the parties and has given an anxious consideration.
9. The materials on record show that the Notice Inviting E-
Tender dated 11.06.2021, more particularly, in respect to road
Page No.# 7/10
transport contract had categorically stated the following at NB:
(1) which is reproduced herein under:-
“NB:-1) 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 rate should be quoted as PER MT basis
for the entire distance. If rate is quoted otherwise it shall be
considered INVALID repeat INVALID.”
10. It is further pertinent to take note that the contract in
question was not awarded on the basis of distance, rather
awarded on the basis of the quoted rate(s) per MT.
11. The directions which were passed by the learned Meghalaya
High Court thereby limiting the vehicles bearing a total weight in
excess of 10 metric tons was issued on 04.05.2022 much after
the Petitioner had submitted its bid and the Letter of Acceptance
was issued. The consequential order which was passed by the
Superintendent of Police, Ri-Bhoi District dated 11.05.2022 is
also subsequent to the submission of the bid by the Petitioner as
well as the Letter of Acceptance which was issued to the
petitioner.
12. The petitioner herein claims that the petitioner had quoted
Page No.# 8/10
the rate taking into account the distance from Ex-CFCC (FSD)
Changsari to FSD Shillong via the Umiam Bridge which is 118.2
Kms., but on account of the order passed by the learned
Meghalaya High Court dated 04.05.2022 as well as the order
issued by the Superintendent of Police, Ri-Bhoi District dated
11.05.2022, the petitioner claims that the petitioner had to travel
an additional distance thereby incurring huge expenditure
beyond what was anticipated by the Petitioner.
13. It is very pertinent to take note that this Court while
exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
do not act as an Appellate Authority, but only ascertains as to
whether the actions on the part of the Respondent Authorities
are unfair, unjustified and arbitrary or contrary to the settled
terms and conditions between the petitioner and the Respondent
Corporation. This Court has also perused the report of the
Grievance Redressal Committee wherein applying the terms of
the Notice Inviting E-Tender and the Model Terms and Conditions
of the contract have rejected the petitioner’s claim.
14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is entitled to additional
compensation on the basis of the principles of quantum meruit
as enshrined in Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. If
that be so, the petitioner has to place relevant evidence in that
Page No.# 9/10
regard as to whether the petitioner is entitled to on the basis of
the principles of quantum meruit. In such regards, there would
be necessity for the Petitioner to prove factually as to whether
the Petitioner had taken certain permissions prior to diverting the
transportation route on account of the closure of the Umiam
Bridge or for that matter the Petitioner was compelled by
circumstances to take the longer route for reasons necessary.
These would require evidence. The report so submitted by the
Grievance Redressal Committee however appear to be in
consonance with the contractual terms and conditions, and as
such, the same cannot be said to be unfair or arbitrary
necessitating the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The said opinion however is in the context of
exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
and not an adjudication as to whether the petitioner is entitled to
additional compensation on account of the principles of quantum
meruit as enshrined in Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act,
1872.
15. Considering the above, it is the opinion of this Court that
this is not a fit case for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution. Accordingly, the writ petition stands
dismissed.
16. Before parting with the record, this Court however observes
Page No.# 10/10
that the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not preclude
the petitioner to claim additional compensation, if so entitled to
under law from the Respondents and the observations so made
herein above shall not prejudice or preclude the petitioner to file
a suit before the Competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction basing its
claim on the principles of quantum meruit.
17. This Court has also taken note of that the petitioner has
been diligently and bonafidely pursuing its remedy before this
Court on the assumption that this Court would have the
jurisdiction. As this Court is not inclined to exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction in the present matter, it is the opinion
of this Court that the petitioner should be given the benefits
under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the period
during which the instant writ petition has been pending, i.e. from
the date of filing of the present writ petition, i.e. 22.11.2022 till
today, i.e. 20.04.2026.
18. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed subject to
the observations made herein above. No costs.
JUDGE
Pradip Kumar Kalita Digitally signed by Pradip Kumar Kalita
Date: 2026.04.20 18:27:12 +05’30’
Comparing Assistant