GAHC020006332024 undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

KOHIMA BENCH

Case No. : WP(C)/231/2024

M/S B.K ENTERPRISES

REPRESENTED NY ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI GURUMAYUM

BIMALKUMAR SHARMA

S/O (L) G. GOURACHANDRA SHARMA, A RESIDENT OF SOIBAM

LEIKAI

OLD CHECKON BAZAR

P.O. IMPHAL AND P.S. POROMPAT IMPHAL EAST, MANIPUR-795001

VERSUS

THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

HAVING ITS OFFICE/HEADQUARTER 16-20, BARAKHAMBA LANE,

NEW DELHI-110001

2:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (NE)

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

ZONAL OFFICE (NE)

B.S. ROAD ULUBARI

GUWAHATI-781007

3:THE GENERAL MANAGER (R) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

REGIONAL OFFICE (NAGALAND) H/NO. 105

BANK COLONY

DIMAPUR

NAGALAND-797112

4:THE AREA MANAGER FCI DP DIMAPUR/IMPHAL REGIONAL OFFICE (NAGALAND)

H.NO. 105 BANK COLONY DIMAPUR NAGALAND-797112

5:THE DEPUTY GENEREAL MANAGER (R)

FCI REGIONAL OFFICE MANIPUR HAVING ITS OFFICE AT OLD ASSEMBLY COMPLEX IMPHAL MANIPUR-79500 Advocate for the Petitioner : N JOTENDRO SINGH, M SOLO,S. MURTAZA AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : ALEMWAPANG AO, M ANYEI,Y S PHOM BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI For the Petitioner : Shri N. Jotendro Singh, Sr. Advocate;

Shri S. Murtaza Ahmed &

Shri M. Solo, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Shri Alemwapang Ao, SC, FCI &

Shri Y.S. Phom, Advocate.

Date of Hearing : 04.12.2025. Date of Judgment : 04.12.2025.

JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)

The decision of the respondent-FCI to make recovery followed by invocation of two Bank Guarantees from the petitioner is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The facts in brief are that a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) No. 1/2019 was issued on 24.01.2019 in which, the petitioner had participated and its bid was accepted vide communication dated 29.03.2019. The petitioner had deposited 50% of the Security Deposit (SD) amounting to Rs.30,61,703/- and thereafter, the Bank Guarantee was to be submitted. However, due to certain reasons, the petitioner had submitted a representation on 20.11.2019 for refund of the SD and expressed its inability to perform the work in question. As no action was taken, the petitioner had filed WP(C)/226/2019 in which this Court, vide order dated 22.11.2019 had directed to consider the representation of the petitioner. In terms of the aforesaid direction, the representation of the petitioner was considered and there was an approval for refund of the SD which was accordingly done. Immediately thereafter, vide an order dated 07.01.2020 issued by the respondent Corporation, the petitioner was blacklisted for 5 years with forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD). Against the same, the petitioner had approached the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC), FCI which had rejected vide order dated 01.05.2020. The same was the subject matter of challenge in the second writ petition filed by the petitioner, namely, WP(C)/75/2020 which was, however, dismissed by this Court vide the order dated 25.03.2021. The said order was also upheld by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in WA/165/2021. It also transpires that the petitioner had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court with Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.23129/2022 which, however, was withdrawn vide order dated 26.08.2022. So far as the work was concerned, a new e-Tender was floated on 02.07.2020 and accordingly, the work was allotted to a third party. Thereafter, there was a communication dated 16.07.2021 to assess the loss which was suffered by the respondent Corporation in connection with the previous publication of the NIT of 24.01.2019 and vide the impugned order dated 22.07.2021, an amount of Rs. 40,27,369/- has been quantified to be recovered from the petitioner. It is this action which is followed by the invocation of the two bank guarantees which are the subject matters of challenge in this writ petition.

3. I have Heard Shri N. Jotendro Singh, learned Senior Co