Contracts must be honored based on verified terms and conditions; discrepancies in distances stated versus actual must be rectified to uphold contractual integrity.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

The instant writ petition has been filed assailing an order dated 26.02.2023, passed by the Disputes/Grievance Redressal Committee of the Food Corporation of India (FCI), whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected.

2. There is a chequered history involved in this litigation.

3. The Respondent No. 2 had issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 30.03.2015, for appointment of regular contractors for transportation of food grains. The Petitioner had submitted its tender for the route against Sl. No. 5, i.e, ex-Railway Siding Salchapra to FCI, FCD, Chandrapur (Tripura), via weighbridge whereby the distance was notified to be 292 KM. The petitioner had submitted its bid @ Rs.2759/- per MT which was the L1 rate and accordingly the petitioner was awarded the work. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the procedure, for finding the lowest rate, the quoted rate is converted to per kilometre. The formal work order was issued on 02.06.2015. However, on execution of the work, the petitioner found that the distance was more than 292 KM, and, therefore had made numerous representations to the FCI authorities which ultimately led to the FCI to form a Committee by an order dated 19.08.2016, to find out the actual distance. The Committee had accordingly, made a physical verification and submitted a report as per which, the distance was found to be 343.2 KM. It is contended that in the said report, it was mentioned that there were three ways leading to the main road National Highway via Kalain. However, lorries/trucks could ply through only one road and the other two roads pass through populated villages and private tea estate and hence it would not have been possible for lorries/trucks to ply through those two roads.

4. The petitioner had accordingly claimed the differential amount which was, however, rejected vide an order dated 20.01.2017. The said rejection order was the subject matter of challenge in WP(C)/ 3138/2018. Based on an earlier order passed in another writ proceeding, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed on 22.05.2019 against which the Corporation had preferred WA/36/2020 in which the Hon’ble Division Bench interfered with the judgment and directing the petitioner to approach the Disputes Redressal Committee. However, on such approach the Committee had rejected the claim vide order dated 17.08.2022 which was challenged by the petitioner in WP(C)/ 6618/2022. The matter was remanded back for a fresh consideration. The Committee however passed another order dated 26.02.2023 of rejection and accordingly the present writ petition has been instituted.

5. Heard Shri G. N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Todi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri B. K. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, FCI.

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has contended that in a similar circumstance, a party had earlier approached this Court by filing writ petition i.e. WP(C)/4117/2017, which was allowed vide judgment dated 03.04.2018. In terms of the said judgment, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was also allowed vide judgment dated 22.05.2019, whereby the respondents were directed to make the payment of the entire distance of 343.2 KM. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that against the aforesaid judgment, the respondent FCI had preferred Writ Appeal i.e. WA/36/2020, which was however allowed vide judgment dated 24.02.2020.

7. The grounds on which the appe