By the Court.—M/s. Veena Transport Company, a proprietorship firm, engaged in the business of handling and transport, has filed the instant writ petition against the order dated 8.7.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority (Grievance Redressal Committee) whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 2.4.2014 passed by the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Faizabad whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected.

2. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, M/s. Veena Transport Company was awarded the contract for appointment of handling and transport contractors at Railhead, Faizabad at the offered tender rate of 145% ASOR (Above Schedule of Rate) vide letter dated 28.12.2011. The said contract was for a period of two years. The job of the petitioner as a contractor was that he would unload the material/goods from the wagons of railway sheds to the go-down of the Food Corporation of India. It is said that despite the specific conditions of penalty by the railway department, the opposite parties have failed to provide adequate labour at their go-downs as a result of which the trucks at their depot could not be unloaded timely rather they took around 3-4 days to unload the vehicle which resulted in heavy demurrage and warfage.

3. Elaborating his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to fault of opposite parties heavy warfage and demurrage was imposed upon the petitioner, which action was assailed in Writ Petition No. 95210 (MB) of 2013. The said writ petition was dismissed on 4.4.2014 on the ground of alternative remedy before the Dispute Redressal Committee. Later on, the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Area Manager vide order dated 2.4.2014 and appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 8.7.2015.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that while deciding the appeal, the appellate authority has ignored the direction issued by the district administration in which the official of the Food Corporation of India were also members. It has been clarified that in the meeting dated 20.6.2012 under the chairmanship of the District Magistrate-Faizabad, it was specifically directed that the trucks loaded with goods or unloaded trucks could be diverted through bypass and those trucks would not be allowed entry in the main city. Having done so, the agreement was not only binding upon the common public, but also upon the petitioner and F.C.I., who were the signatories to such an arrangement. It has also been assailed that the petitioner has provided more than double the trucks as directed by the Manager depot but still it has been wrongly observed in the impugned order that there was inadequate supply of numbers of trucks and the liability of demurrage and warfage charges amounting to Rs. 96,83,510/- upon the petitioner has wrongly been fastened.

5. It has been vehemently argued that illegal deduction under the head of demurrage or warfage charges would cause serious prejudice and colossal loss to the petitioner.

6. Refuting the allegations of the petitioner, a preliminary objections has been raised by the Counsel for the respondents that the instant writ petition arises out of the contractual dispute between the petitioner and the Corporation as such the same is not maintainable. In response to a Handling Transport Contract Tender Form floated by the Corporation, the petitioner has applied for the tender and was finally awarded the contract in question. Clause XVIII of the tender conditions provides about the redressal of disputes by the Dispute/Grievance Redressal Committee. In the event if any disputes remain thereafter, the same will be settled in the Court of law having competent jurisdiction. He further pointed out that a bare perusal of the tender document further shows that the proprietor of petitioner had duly consented for the same as his signatures are also apparent upon