Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 7659
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Honourable Mr. Justice Devashis Baruah, J
R Trade and Logistic Pvt Ltd – Appellant
Versus
The Food Corporation of India – Respondent
WP(C)/4485/2025
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. M. Das
For the Respondent(s): Mr. B.K. Singh
The court addressed the interpretation of contract terms regarding submission timelines under a tender, evaluating the relevance of extensions granted and the appropriateness of invoking writ jurisdiction.
Headnote:(A) Contract Law - Terms of Tender - The petitioner was a successful tenderer required to furnish a security deposit within 15 working days but was granted an extension by the respondent Corporation. The petitioner submitted the deposit a day late; however, the court addressed whether time was of the essence given the actions of the respondent. (Paras 4-6)
(B) Jurisdiction - The learned counsel for the respondents argued against the writ jurisdiction due to an alternative remedy being available to the petitioner. (Paras 7-10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, being the successful tenderer, contested the forfeiture of security deposit and the issuance of a new tender following a delay in deposit submission.
Findings of Court:
The matter is directed to be listed on a returnable date for further proceedings.
Issues: Key issues included the interpretation of time obligations under the tender and the fitness of writ jurisdiction given prior alternative options for resolution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the actions of the respondents must conform with contractual terms while considering whether time was indeed an essence; additionally, it recognized the petitioner should explore available remedies.
Result: Matter is to be listed on the next returnable date.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. interpretation of time obligations in tender contracts. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. discussion on alternative remedies to the judicial approach. (Para 7) |
| 3. procedural direction for further proceedings. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
ORDER
08.08.2025 Date :
Issue notice making it returnable on 10.11.2025.
2. Mr. B.K. Singh, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of all the respondents and accepts notice.
3. Extra copies of the writ petition be served upon the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents within 2 (two)
days.
4. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner was a successful tenderer in respect to a Notice Inviting E-Tender dated 06.06.2024 issued by the respondent Corporation. In terms with Clause IX(a) of Annexure-I to the Notice Inviting E- Tender, the petitioner being a successful tenderer was required to furnish the security deposit within 15 working days of acceptance of the tender.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner was intimated that the petitioner is the successful tenderer on 30.08.2024, the 15 working days would fall on 18.09.2024. However, the petitioner could not submit the security deposit within the said period. Be that as it may, the respondent Corporation granted a further opportunity to the petitioner to submit the security deposit by 19.09.2024. The petitioner, however submitted the security deposit on 20.09.2024.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as the Respondent Authorities had extended on their own volition the period from 18.09.2024 to 19.09.2024, the condition which is mentioned in Clause IX(a) of Annexure-I to the Notice Inviting E-Tender has to be taken as a directory condition and time was never the essence of the contract. He therefore submitted that as time was not the essence of the contract, the Respondent Authorities having accepted the security deposit on 20.09.2024, the Respondent Authorities could not have taken recourse to Sub-Clause (f) of Clause IX of Annexure-I to the Notice Inviting E-Tender. He submitted that the Respondent Authorities have not only forfeited the security deposit, but also have issued a fresh Notice Inviting E-Tender at the risk and cost of the petitioner as well as imposed a ban of 2 (two) years. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the said actions on the part of the respondent Corporation.
7. Mr. B.K. Singh, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation submitted that this is the second round of litigation inasmuch as the petitioner earlier approached this Court and this Court taking into account that there was an alternative remedy available vide an order dated 08.11.2024 in WP(C) No. 5776/2024 granted the liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent No. 6. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation further submitted that this is not a fit case for exercising the writ jurisdiction, taking into account that the decision so taken by the respondent No. 6 is in consonance with the contractual terms.
8. Taking into account the said submissions, this Court directs the matter to be listed on the returnable date. The respondent Corporation shall file their affidavit by 29.10.2025.
9. Liberty is given to the petitioner to file the reply on or before the next returnable date.
10. This Court observes that the decision(s) so taken which are impugned in the instant proceedings shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
11. List accordingly.
