M/s. Amar Goods Transport vs Food Corporation of Dinai

Challenging the action of the respondents in cancelling the acceptance of tender and contracts which was granted to the petitioner by the impugned order Annexure P-16 dated 8/04/13, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Certain tenders were invited by the Food Corporation of India, Regional Office Bhopal for the purpose of handling and transportation of food-grains and the contract for a period of two years from 3/04/12 to 2/04/14 was proposed to be awarded to the petitioner. However, on the ground that petitioner did not deposit the security amount in time or furnish the bank guarantee in time, certain correspondence took place and finally on the ground that the security amount as required is not deposited within the time stipulated, the award granted to the petitioner was cancelled and it was granted for a period of 6 months to the respondent temporarily M/s. Chirag Saluja.

Challenge to the aforesaid cancellation of award is made in this writ petition mainly on the ground that the security amount is deposited within the Bank and certain documents have been filed to say that the Bank has certified the same. However, respondents have passed a detailed order but petitioner submits that the facts are not correct.

Be it as it may be, the matter pertains to cancellation of a contract and the dispute is purely factual in nature. Dispute is with regard to whether the requirement of deposit of security amount was made by the petitioner in accordance with the stipulations contained in the tender document or not.

During the course of hearing of this writ petition, Shri S.K. Rao, learned Sr. Counsel invited our attention to Clause XVIII of the terms and conditions of the tender available at page 42 and submits that under Clause (b), there is a provision for resolution of a dispute between the parties and as the Dispute Redressal Committee has been constituted in the Zonal office of the Corporation for settlement of such dispute, it is stated by Shri Rao that the petition directly before this Court without taking recourse to the said forum is not maintainable because the agreement itself contemplates resolution of a dispute.

Shri Sanjayram Tamrakar refuted the aforesaid and argued that the dispute cannot be resolved by the said committee. The committee has no power to restore the contract and, therefore, the writ petition is maintainable.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and as indicated hereinabove, it is clear that the dispute in question pertains to certain factual aspects of the matter and when the agreement itself contemplates a dispute resolution system, it is not appropriate for this Court to interfere into the matter in a petition exercising extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Petitioner should take recourse to the remedy available and, thereafter, seek indulgence by the competent Court of law in case, he has any grievance still subsisting. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy available as indicated hereinabove, this petition stands disposed of.