Tripura High Court
The Food Corporation Of India ... vs Smti. Namita Paul on 5 August, 2025
Page 1 of 2
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.135 of 2023
1. The Food Corporation of India represented by its Chairman cum Managing
Director, having its Head Office at 16-20 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi -
110001
2. The General Manager (R), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, NEF
Region, Mawlai, Mawroh, Shillong, PIN-793008
3. The Area Manager/Divisional Manager, Food Corporation of India,
Divisional Office, Agartala, West Tripura - 799001
.........Appellant(s);
Versus
Smti. Namita Paul, wife of Swapan Kumar Paul, Resident of B.K. Road,
Banamalipur, Agartala, P.S. East Agartala, District - West Tripura
.........Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, Advocate,
Mr. Kundan Pandey, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
Order
05/08/2025
Heard the counsel for the appellants.
This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 10.05.2023 of
the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.960/2022.
The respondent had approached this Court by filing the writ
petition alleging that the appellant had unlawfully deducted an amount of
Rs.32,47,763/- illegally, arbitrarily, unjustly and without any authority of law,
and also in violation of principles of natural justice and sought refund of the
said amount.
When the matter was taken up before the learned Single Judge,
counsel for the appellants is said to have stated that there was a judgment
rendered by the Supreme Court on 18.11.2022 titled Food Corporation of
India & others v. Abhijit Paul which also touches the issue involved in the writ
petition filed by the respondent, and that the appellants will reconsider the case
of the respondent. This is recorded in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
On the basis of the said submission, the writ petition was disposed
of setting aside the impugned order dated 05.09.2022 and directing the
appellants to consider the case of the respondent in the light of the judgment of
the Apex Court referred to supra within three months.
Assailing the same, this writ appeal is filed.
It is the contention of the counsel for the appellants that the
counsel who appeared before the Single Judge was not authorized to make such
a representation.
Since the direction in the judgment of the learned Single Judge is
only to consider the case of the respondent keeping in mind the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India (supra), the appellants
can take a view either in favour of the respondent or against him, by passing a
reasoned order. They can also say why the said Supreme Court judgment
cannot be applied, if they take the said view. Thus there is no prejudice caused
to the appellants by the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.
We are therefore of the view that appellants cannot claim to be
aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.
Therefore the Writ Appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/-
to be paid by appellants to respondent.
(S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA, J) (M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)
Pijush/
MUNNA SAHA Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA
Date: 2025.08.06 16:22:23 +05'30'
