The Food Corporation Of India & Another vs Smti. Namita Paul
2024 Latest Caselaw 1114 Tri

Tripura High Court

The Food Corporation Of India & Another vs Smti. Namita Paul on 10 July, 2024

Author: Arindam Lodh

Bench: Arindam Lodh

                                   Page 1 of 6




                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                              AGARTALA
                IA No.01/2024 in Review Pet. No.05 of 2024
                          Review Pet. No.05 of 2024
                                 along with
                IA No.01/2024 in Review Pet. No.06 of 2024
                          Review Pet. No.06 of 2024
The Food Corporation of India & another
                                               .........Applicant/Petitioner(s);
                                   Versus
Smti. Namita Paul
                                                       .........Respondent(s).

For Applicant/Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)               : None.
     HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
                                     Order
10/07/2024

These two review petitions have been preferred against the

common impugned Judgment dated 19.10.2023 by the appellant-Food

Corporation of India (FCI). Both these review petitions are barred by delay of

149 days and 155 days respectively for condonation of which IA No.01/2024

has been preferred in each of them. The review petitioner has also enclosed the

judgment dated 04.01.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special

Leave to Appeal (C) No(s) 27419-27420 of 2023 whereby the Apex Court has

dismissed the special leave petitions arising out of the impugned judgment and

order dated 19.10.2023 in RFA No.25/2022 and RFA No.26/2022 passed by

this Court.

2. It appears that while dismissing the special leave petitions, no

leave has been sought for filing a review petition. Be that as it may, the instant

matters have been taken up on successive dates but were adjourned on the

request made on behalf of the petitioner that an outstation counsel would be

assisting this Court. On the previous date while accepting the request of

adjournment made on behalf of the petitioner, this Court had adjourned the

matters by way of last indulgence. Today again Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned

counsel submits that the outstation counsel has not been able to come for his

personal reasons.

3. We are not inclined to adjourn the matters any further. Mr. R.G.

Chakraborty, who is on the panel of the FCI, has made a request to dispose of

the instant review petitions and the interlocutory applications seeking

condonation of delay after considering the judgment rendered by the learned

Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No.3498/2010 dated

26.09.2014.

4. Petitioner, in its application for condonation of delay, has referred

to the dismissal of the special leave petitions preferred against the impugned

judgment and order dated 19.10.2023. It is averred that thereafter the learned

advocate-on-record representing the petitioner before the Apex Court informed

the Divisional Manager, FCI, Agartala vide email dated 04.01.2024 that since

the aforesaid SLP is dismissed in limine, a review petition before the High

Court may be preferred in the light of the judgment dated 26.09.2014 passed by

the Gauhati High Court. The email was forwarded by the Divisional Manager,

FCI, Agartala to the AGM (Contract) on the same date with a recommendation

to file a review petition and preferably engage a counsel from outstation. Later

on 18.01.2024, the AGM (Contract) informed the Divisional Manager, FCI,

Agartala as well as the outstation counsel-on-record that the competent

authority has approved the filing of review petition through him and further

requested to coordinate with the advocate for supply of all requisite information

and send draft review petition to his office for vetting. It is further stated that

since the Standing Counsel was preoccupied with other engagements of the FCI

in outlying Benches of the Gauhati High Court, the review petition could only

be prepared on 12.02.2024 and was forwarded to the Regional Office, FCI,

Shillong for perusal and necessary vetting. Their office was also advised to file

a condonation application since the review petition had become time barred.

The draft interlocutory application for condonation of delay was also referred

vide email dated 13.02.2024 to the FCI Regional Office for vetting. Thereafter

on 22.03.2024, their office instructed the Standing Counsel to file the review

petition along with the condonation application. The review petition and the

condonation application have been filed thereafter with a delay of 149 days and

155 days respectively in both the review petitions. Petitioner has sought

condonation of delay on the basis of aforesaid facts and circumstances.

5. However, after going through the delay condonation applications,

this Court is not satisfied with the explanation urged. The chronology of dates

and events narrated in the Interlocutory Applications are in the nature of routine

movement of the files without any sense of urgency to file the review petition

after dismissal of the SLP by the Apex Court. The limitation period prescribed

for preferring a review petition is only 30 days. We have also gone through the

grounds raised in both the review petitions for review of the impugned

judgment. On a plain reading of the grounds also it appears that the petitioner

has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 26.09.2014 passed by the Gauhati

High Court and facts relating to the merits of the case such as the overloading

of transport trucks being used for transportation of food grains, sugar and other

allied materials under the contract executed between the parties. Petitioner has

also referred to Clause X(c) of the contract agreement which was duly

interpreted by this Court in the impugned judgment dated 19.10.2023. None of

the grounds urged in the review petitions satisfy the conditions prescribed

under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC. The impugned

judgment has been rendered by a Division Bench of this Court and challenge

thereto has been negated by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C)

No(s) 27419-27420 of 2023. The plea raised by the petitioner to review the

impugned judgment rendered by this Court and as upheld by the Apex Court,

cannot be allowed on the basis of a judgment rendered in another case by

learned Single Judge of Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No.3498/2010 dated

26.09.2014 in a different context. In WP(C) No.3498/2010, the petitioners

before the Gauhati High Court had, at the stage of award of contract in their

favour after their technical bids were found responsive and price bids were

opened, sought interference of the Writ Court seeking exemption to carry to

transport food grains from FCI depots on different routes in the northeastern

region through trucks which can carry load above 9 metric ton. The FCI took a

stand that the tender process had already been finalized and as such they were

obliged to execute the contract at the quoted rate. WP(C) No.3682/2010 on the

other hand challenged the FCI's acceptance communication dated 17.06.2010

whereby the tenderers were directed to furnish security money for issuance of

formal appointment letter. Other writ petitions decided conjointly raised same

issues. The learned Single Bench of the Gauhati High Court did not find any

reason to interfere in the matter and absolve the tenderers from the obligations

under the contract. In the present case, after execution of the contract with the

plaintiff/respondent herein in 2009 for transportation of food grains/sugar and

allied materials at the negotiated rate per metric ton, plaintiff transported food

grains in terms of the contract with effect from 16.11.2009 with trucks carrying

loads of 16 MT per vehicle. The bills submitted by the plaintiff were also duly

cleared by the defendants-FCI. They had also issued road movement permits

for the vehicle indicating gross rate, weight of the goods to be carried from 16

MT to 19 MT. However, in the third week of October, 2010, FCI started

deviating from the prevailing system of issuing indents for truck and instead of

issuing indents on the basis of load capacity of 16 MT to 19 MT per truck, they

started issuing indents on the basis of reduced load capacity of 8 MT to 10 MT

per truck. Though the plaintiff continued to execute the contracts thereafter

sustaining losses, the FCI invoked Clause X(c) of the agreement without any

notice ignoring the letter of the plaintiff for enhancement of the rate of

transportation in the changed situation. During midst of the execution of the

contract after a year, dispute arose between the parties leading to invocation of

Clause X(c) of the agreement by the FCI and forfeiture of security money. By

the impugned judgment and order rendered in RFA No.25/2022 and RFA

No.26/2022, this Court held that forfeiture of security deposit by the contractor

could be done in the event of termination of the contract envisaged in Clause

XI(c). Consequently, it was held that the plaintiff-contractor was entitled to get

the refund of the security deposit along with interest. As such, the issues in the

present matter are different. Therefore, on the basis of a judgment rendered by

the learned Single Bench of the Gauhati High Court in a writ petition in a

different context, the plea raised by the petitioners for review of the impugned

judgment cannot be accepted.

6. Apart from the above contention on the merits of the plea seeking

review, we do not find sufficient explanation for condonation of delay on the

basis of facts and circumstances discussed above. Accordingly, both the

interlocutory applications are dismissed. Consequently, both the review

petitions are also dismissed.

(ARINDAM LODH), J                                      (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ




Pijush/

MUNNA SAHA Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA
           Date: 2024.07.16 16:24:19 +05'30'