GUWAHATI, India, Nov. 30 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Oct. 30:

1. We have heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Advocate for the appellants/Food Corporation of India (FCI) and Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned Advocate for the sole respondent.

2. The appellant/Corporation has questioned the judgment dated 23.01.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.66/2024, holding that the contract between the appellant and the respondent was validly discharged on issuance of a No Dues Certificate and refund of the Security Deposit of the respondent.

Under such circumstances, the imposition of a notice of refund by way of Demand Notice dated 04.08.2023, was non est, void and therefore, liable to be quashed.

The learned Single Judge further directed for refund of the amount of Rs.2.11 crores, which was deducted from various other contract dues of the respondent; which was made payable by the appellant/Corporation within a period of 45 days, failing which, interest at the rate of 9% would be charged on such amount.

The learned Single Judge, however, declined to direct for the refund of Rs.25 lakhs, which was not protested to by the respondent immediately after the discharge of the contract.

3. The necessary facts for disposal of this writ appeal are as hereunder: The Food Corporation of India (FCI) had floated a Notice Inviting e-Tender on 11.03.2015 for transportation handler of food grains and other articles from ExRailway Siding/Food Storage Depot (FSD) Changsari to FCI FSD Tangla via weighbridge covering a distance of 90 Km.

4. The respondent was one of the participant tenderers, who was selected and appointed as the contractor on 20.06.2015. The contract subsisted for 2(two) years i.e. from 20.06.2015 to 19.06.2017, which was further extended up to 22.07.2017.

5. After the completion of the contract, the respondent raised the bill on the basis of the terms of the Contract and the distance; which was assessed by the Corporation between Changsari to Tangla.

As it appears from the records that during the extended period of the contract with the respondent, an attempt was made to again measure the shortest motorable distance between Changsari to Tangla via the weighbridge and it was found that the distance was 74 Km. However, a confusion remained all through whether it was the shortest viable route. The distance between the two destinations though should remain invariable, but it depends on various other conditions, namely, road blockade, diversions, construction, change of course etc.

When this assessment was made, the respondent was not taken into confidence and he was absolutely unaware of the methodology of the appellant/Corporation in measuring the shortest motorable distance from Changsari to Tangla.

However, the report in that regard was submitted and accepted on 29.04.2017, holding the shortest motorable distance to be 76 Km and not 90 Km.

6. Though the respondent protested such action of the appellant/Corporation by submitting various representations, on 29.07.2017 and 25.09.2017, but to no avail.

7. Based on that, recoveries were made from the respondent, calculated on the newly assessed distance of 74 Km, but such recovery was limited from 29.04.2017 to the extended period of contract with the respondent till 22.07.2017. An amount of Rs.25 lakhs was recovered from the respondent.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x7gV3tuSgMcvSY4GP6x%2BFUOjnk03ZzS%2BXRyKOo1hnJsU&caseno=WA/159/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010043952025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.