Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 967
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
G B Chowdhury Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Rep. By its director, smt. Sujata guring chowdhury – Petitioner
Versus
The Food Corporation Of India, Rep. By Its Chairman Cum Managing Director And Ors. – Respondent
WP(C) 7577 of 2022
Decided On : 20-04-2026
Important Points
Subject
Service and Contract Law - Government Contracts and Writ Jurisdiction
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Quantum Meruit - Entitlement to compensation for additional work - Principles of restitution require detailed factual proof concerning the necessity and authorization of changes in performance parameters, which is outside the threshold of summary writ proceedings. (Para 14)
(C) Limitation - Exclusion of time - Where a litigant pursues a remedy in a wrong forum under a bona fide assumption of jurisdiction, the period spent in such proceedings may be excluded for computing the period of limitation for a subsequent suit. (Para 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a logistics provider, entered into a contract to transport goods based on a specific route. Subsequently, a judicial order restricted vehicle access to a bridge on the original route, forcing the petitioner to take a longer path, resulting in increased operational costs. A grievance committee rejected the request for additional compensation, citing terms in the tender document that explicitly prohibited escalation of rates due to route diversion.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the contractual terms were clear, and the decision reached by the grievance committee was consistent with the agreement. The writ court cannot re-write contracts or adjudicate factual claims requiring evidence. However, judicial intervention is not a bar to seeking common law remedies.
Issues: Whether a court under writ jurisdiction can award additional compensation for route diversion despite non-escalation clauses, and whether the time spent in the current proceedings can be excused in future litigation.
Ratio Decidendi: Contractual obligations must be honored as agreed, and constitutional remedies are not intended to resolve factual disputes regarding quantum of damages or breach of contract. A civil suit is the appropriate forum for claims of restitution, and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of time exclusion under statutory limitation provisions for the period spent pursuing the writ petition.
Result: Petition dismissed with liberty to move the civil court; time spent in the petition excluded from limitation.
For the Petitioners:Mr. B. Chakraborty, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. B. K. Singh, SC, FCI
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contractual obligations and performance under changed circumstances. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding contractual liability and state fairness in performance. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. limitations of writ jurisdiction in contractual disputes and requirement of evidence for quantum meruit. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. dismissal of writ petition with liberty to pursue civil remedy and exclusion of time for limitation. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
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 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 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 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-op
