[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Gb Logistics Commerce Limited vs The Union Of India And Ors on 18 March, 2026
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010055192026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1619/2026
GB LOGISTICS COMMERCE LIMITED
REP. BY MANOJ RATHI , AGED 55 YRS,
S/O- LATE SHIV KISHAN RATHI, HAVING REGD OFFICE AT STAND ROAD,
5TH FLOOR, ROOM NO-508A, KOLKATA, PIN-700001
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
REP. BY THE SECRETARY , MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND
PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION , GOVT. OF INDIA, KRISHI BHAWAN, DR.
RAJENDRA PEASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-01
2:THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
REP. BY ITS GM
REGIONAL OFFICE
ASSAM REGION
3RD FLOOR
MT TOWER
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI-08
3:THE GENERAL MANAGER (REGION)
FCI
REGIONAL OFFICE
ASSAM REGION
3RD FLOOR
MT TOWER
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI-08
4:THE MANAGER
FCI
Page No.# 2/6
DIV. OFFICE
GUWAHATI
MITRA BUILDING
ASHRAM ROAD
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-07
5:THE ASTT. GENERAL MANAGER
FCI
REGIONAL OFFICE
ASSAM REGION
3RD FLOOR
MT TOWER
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI-08
6:THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
FCI
DIV. OFFICE
GUWAHATI
MITRA BUILDING
ASHRAM ROAD
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-07
7:THE BRANCH MANAGER
HDFC BANK LTD.
BUILDWELL COMPOUND
NEAR DARWIN CAMPUS
BESIDE
NEEPCO BHAWAN
ZOO ROAD
GUWAHATI-0
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A KHANDAKAR, MR. J GOGOI,MR B P BORAH,MR P J
DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, F C I
Page No.# 3/6
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : --18.03.2026
Heard Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B.P. Borah, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.K. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, FCI for the
respondent nos. 2-6.
2. Issue notice, returnable on 22.04.2026.
3. As Mr. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, FCI has appeared and accepted notices for
the respondent nos. 2-6, formal notices need not be issued to the said respondents.
Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner shall furnish requisite nos. of extra
copies of the writ petition along with the annexures, to Mr. Singh, within 2 [two]
working days from today.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner shall furnish a copy of the writ petition along
with annexures to the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, within 2 [two]
working days from today for service of notice upon the respondent no. 1.
5. The petitioner shall take steps for service of notice upon the respondent no. 7 by
speed post, within 2 [two] working days from today.
6. By a Notice Inviting Tender [NIT] dated 29.08.2025, the respondent no. 2 invited
online tenders under 'Two-Bid Tendering System' at GeM portal for appointment of
Road Transport Contractor on regular basis for a period of two years. The estimated
value of the Estimated Value of Contract [EVOC] and the EMD mentioned in the
Tender Notice was Rs. 4,83,00,000/- and Rs. 9,66,000/-, respectively.
7. The petitioner participated in the tender process and having found the bid of the
petitioner technically qualified, its financial bid was opened. The rate of Rs. 449 per
MT quoted by the petitioner for the entire distance for transportation was considered
and found L-1. By a Letter of Acceptance dated 04.12.2025, the petitioner was asked
Page No.# 4/6
to deposit the security deposit amount mentioned therein. An amount of Rs.
70,65,000/- was directed to be deposited in the form of an irrevocable and
unconditional Bank Guarantee [BG]. The last date for submission of the Bank
Guarantee [BG] with penalty was 13.01.2026.
8. The case of the petitioner is that due to certain technical/system related issues at the
respondent no. 7 Bank's end, the BG could not be processed by the respondent no. 7
Bank on 13.01.2026. The BG could finally be issued on 14.01.2026 and with
14.01.2026 being a holiday, the petitioner could deposit the BG on 15.01.2026. In the
BG so issued, the effective date was mentioned as 13.01.2026, the date of start of
liability was also from 13.01.2026. The risk was also covered from 13.01.2026. Upon
depositing the BG, the respondent FCI authorities did not enter into the Contract
Agreement till 03.02.2026.
9. On 03.02.2026, a Show-Cause Notice was issued on the aspect of delayed
submission of the BG. Thereafter, by the impugned Order dated 23.02.2026, the
tender has been terminated. The petitioner has also been debarred from participating
in any other tender enquiry with the FCI for a period of two years. In addition, the
security deposit amount of Rs. 11,77,500/- and the BG amount of Rs. 70,65,000/-
have been forfeited and the petitioner has been informed that the matter would be
taken up for cancellation of the petitioner's MSME Certificate.
10. Mr. Goswami has contended that the default occurred in late submission of the BG
beyond 13.01.2026 was not attributable to the petitioner. It was entirely due to the
failure on the part of the respondent no. 7 Bank to process the BG on 13.01.2026
due to technical/system related issues, the BG was issued and handed over to the
petitioner on 14.01.2026. However, the BG coverage was from 13.01.2026. Upon
submission of the BG on 15.01.2026, the respondent FCI authorities could have acted
further for execution of the Transport Contract Agreement on the basis of the
explanation furnished by the respondent Bank to them on 03.02.2026. The act of
invoking the BG was beyond the terms and conditions of the NIT/Bidding Document.
Mere failure to abide by the terms and conditions of the NIT/Bidding Document could
Page No.# 5/6
not have resulted in a harsh penalty like debarment. After taking such decisions in an
illegal and arbitrary manner, the respondent FCI authorities have proceeded further
to publish a fresh NIT dated 05.03.2026. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that
as the petitioner has a strong case on merits, an interim order of stay of the tender
process initiated by the NIT dated 05.03.2026 is called for.
11. Mr. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, FCI has submitted that measures taken were in
strict conformity with the terms and conditions of the NIT/Bidding Document. The
Road Transport Contract is for distribution of PDS items. As the BG was submitted on
a date beyond 13.01.2026, it entailed termination of the tender process, forfeiture of
the EMD and Security deposit amounts including encashment of the BG, followed by
debarment.
12. From the terms and conditions of the NIT/Bidding Document, it does not prima facie
emerge that failure to deposit the BG within the prescribed time period or extended
time period with penalty would result in forfeiture of the BG amount, which was a
part of the security deposit amount. The respondent FCI authorities have, however,
decided to invoke the BG which act in an implied manner is suggestive of acceptance
of the security amount.
13. Having regard to the case projected by the petitioner, the respondent FCI authorities
may proceed with the tender process initiated by the NIT dated 05.03.2026. But the
said tender process shall not be finalized without the leave of this Court, till the
returnable date. The amount received by the respondent FCI authorities by invoking
the BG shall be kept in a interest bearing instrument until further orders.
14. The respondent FCI authorities shall ensure that their stand is brought in the form of
an affidavit by 10.04.2026.
JUDGE
Page No.# 6/6
Comparing Assistant
