Point of Law: Contractor had not approached Grievance Redressal Committee and hence, Court, relegated contractor to invoke jurisdiction of Grievance Redressal Committee for ventilating its grievances.

JUDGMENT :

The instant intra-Court writ appeal is preferred by the appellant Food Corporation of India (FCI) for assailing the judgment and final order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge accepting the writ petition, being WP(C) No.214/2019 preferred by the writ petitioner/respondent with the following directions to the appellants herein.

“21. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 to release the balance payment to the petitioner in respect of the additional 52.5 KM @ Rs.10.98 per MT per KM within a period of 60(sixty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The respondents will also ensure that the security deposit of the petitioner is released along with the payments, as directed by this Court.”

2. The facts relevant and essential for disposal of the writ appeal, are noted hereinbelow:

The appellants herein issued Notice Inviting e-Tender (NIeT) dated 30.03.2015 inviting bids from interested contractors for execution of transport contracts under the Food Corporation of India (FCI) in respect of as many as 13 different routes. The tenders were invited in 2(two) bid system, wherein the contractors were required to submit their technical bid as well as price bid. The tender document itself indicated that the rate quoted should be per MT per KM as per MTF. If the rate quoted is otherwise then it would be converted per MT per KM taking the distance as mentioned in the NIeT.

The writ petitioner/respondent herein submitted its bid in respect of the work mentioned at Serial No.5 of the NIeT, pertaining to “Ex-Railway Siding, Salchapra to FCI, FSD, Nandannagar (Tripura) via Weighbridge” having distance of 232 KMs. The NIeT portrayed that the total distance to be covered in the route for which the respondent/writ petitioner had submitted its bid, was 232 KMs. As such, the writ petitioner/respondent quoted an amount of Rs.2,549/-per MT taking the distance to be 232 KMs. In accordance with the tender condition noted above, the rate quoted by the writ petitioner/respondent was converted into per MT per KM taking the distance as mentioned in the NIeT, which worked out to Rs.10.98 per MT per KM. Accordingly, the writ petitioner/respondent became the L-1 bidder and the work was awarded to it. On completion of the work, payment was also made to the writ petitioner/respondent for a distance of 232 KMs @ Rs.10.98 per MT per KM.

3. It transpires that numerous discrepancies were noted by the authorities regarding the distance originally projected in the NIeT dated 30.03.2015 in respect of as many as 4(four) different routes. Accordingly, a 4(four) member Review Committee was constituted by the FCI to verify the actual distance and to prepare a report as regards the road distance pertaining to Ex-Railway Siding, Salchapra to FCI, FSD, Anundhuti Nagar, Nandan Nagar and Chandrapur as well as Ex-Railway Siding, Bihara to FSD, Chandrapur and Nandan Nagar.

After making physical verification of the distance, the Review Committee submitted a report dated 12.09.2016, prepared by 4(four) responsible officials of the FCI. As per the contents of the report pertaining to the work executed by the writ petitioner/respondent, the actual distance in the route “Salchapra to FCI FSD, Nandannagar (Tripura) via Weighbridge”, was found to be 284.8 KMs as against the distance originally projected in the NIeT i.e. 232 KMs. It is an admitted position that the FCI authorities have accepted the findings of the Review Committee to be correct.

As soon as the report of the Committee became available, the writ petitioner/respondent approached the FCI authorities seeking payment for the additional distance of 52 KMs over and above the originally projected distance of 232 KMs in the NIeT. However, such claim of the writ petitioner/respondent was rejected by the FCI authorities. The appeal submitted to the Grievance Redre