[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No. 1/4 vs The Food Corporation Of India And 4 Ors on 13 March, 2026
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No. 1/4
GAHC010128912022
2026:GAU-AS:3740
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4391/2022
M/S NIT TRADERS
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT G.C. ROAD, WAKAF BUILDING, TEZPUR,
DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784001, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI
DIGANTAJIT BARUAH, S/O. LT. LAKHI PRASAD BARUAH, R/O. G.C. ROAD,
WAKAF BUILDING, TEZPUR, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784001.
VERSUS
THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, BARAKHAMBA
ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN-110006.
2:THE GENERAL MANAGER (REGIONAL)
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
REGIONAL OFFICE
ASSAM REGION
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI
ASSAM. PIN-781008.
3:DY. GENERAL MANAGER (R)
ASSAM REGION
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
REGIONAL OFFICE
ASSAM REGION
PALTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN-781008.
4:THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
DIVISIONAL OFFICE
NORTH LAKHIMPUR
Page No. 2/4
ASSAM
PIN-787001.
5:THE DEPOT IN CHARGE
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
BANDERDEWA
NORTH LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN-787001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A C BORBORA, MR. M SMITH,MS. N DEY,MRS. R
BORBORA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, F C I,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 13.03.2026
Heard Mr. A.C. Borbora, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. N. Dey, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Roy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.K.
Chakraborty, learned counsel for all the respondents.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court by the instant writ petition seeking a number
of reliefs. One of the reliefs sought for, is for a direction to refund the security deposits
deposited by the petitioner in connection with the various Work Orders, as delineated in
Annexure-11 to the writ petition. In Annexure-11, the petitioner had listed thirty nos. of
contract-works in connection with which the security deposit amounts were not released, at
the time of institution of the writ petition.
3. Mr. Borbora, learned Senior Counsel drawing attention to the stand taken by the
respondent FCI authorities in the additional affidavit, filed on 15.09.2023, and more
particularly, to Annexure-A thereto, has submitted that out of the said thirty contract-works,
the issues regarding return of security deposit amounts have been resolved in respect of
twenty-six nos. of contract-works in the subsequent period. He has submitted that in respect
of the remaining four contract-works, the issues regarding return of the security deposit
amounts have not yet been resolved.
4. Mr. Roy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent FCI authorities has
submitted that he does not have the latest instructions as regards release of the security
deposit amounts in respect of afore-stated four contract works.
5. The four contract works with remarks recorded in Annexure-A, highlighted by Mr.
Borbora, are as under :-
STATUS OF CONTRACTS MENTIONED IN ANNEXURE-11
Contract route/Center Divisional Office Status
NDC cannot be processed, last bill kept withheld as
the total value of work done exceeded the DoP of
North GM[R] and regularisation of ED DoP is pending.
NLP to NLP
Lakhimpur WP[C] 3249 of 2022 filed by contractor in
connection with recovery on account to excess
payment. Matter is subjudice.
The contractor requested DO Tezpur to halt the
Bindukuri to Bindukuri Tezpur
processing of NDC.
Amount of Rs. 18,77,217/- recovered in light of
MLC Nagaon Nagaon CAG Audit observations. WP[C] 5486 of 2022 filed
by contractor. Matter is subjudice.
Bindukuri Intershed Tezpur NDC at DO Tezpur Level, as matter is subjudice.
6. It is submitted by Mr. Borbora that in respect of the Contract-Work, 'NLP to NLP', a
litigation is pending in the form of a writ appeal as on date and the issue regarding the return
of security deposit amount can be finalized only after disposal of the writ appeal. In respect
of the two contract-works, 'Bindukuri to Bindukuri, Tezpur' and 'MLC Nagaon', two other
litigations are pending. In respect of the contract-work, 'Binduguri Intershed, Tezpur', the
petitioner has approached the Grievance Redressal Committee of the FCI and the appeal/writ
petition is pending as on date.
7. In view of the above obtaining fact situation, Mr. Borbora has submitted that since the
issue in connection with return of security deposits in connection with twenty-six nos. of
contract-works are already resolved and the matter of return of security deposit amounts for
the afore-stated four contract-works are pending at different fora, the writ petition can be
closed at this stage, with the liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in case the
petitioner finds himself aggrieved in any manner after conclusion of the pending litigations in
the form of writ appeal/writ petition/a[[ea; before the Grievance Redressal Committee, etc as
it is not certain when such proceedings would come to an end.
8. Mr. Roy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent FCI authorities has
submitted that he has no objection if the writ petition is closed at this stage.
9. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties,
this writ petition is closed. Liberty stands reserved to the petitioner to avail appropriate
remedy permissible under the law in the event the petitioner finds itself aggrieved in any
manner with regard to the petitioner's claim for return of security deposit made in connection
with the afore-stated four contract-works, after disposal of the presently pending writ
appeal/writ petition/appeal before the Grievance Redressal Committee.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
