M/S ARJUN NONGRUM vs FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2026:MLHC:1039
Serial No. 11
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 235 of 2026
Date of Decision: 15.09.2026
M/s Arjun Nongrum,
Having office at Mairang,
Eastern West Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya
Represented by its Proprietor, Shri Arjun Nongrum
… Petitioner(s)
Versus

1. Food Corporation of India,
Having office at 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi
Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director

2. The Executive Director (Zone)
Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office (Northeast),
G L Publication Building, Guwahati-781007, Assam

3. The Grievance Redressal Committee,
Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office (Northeast),
G L Publication Building, Guwahati-781007, Assam

4. The General Manager (Region)
Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, NEF Region,
Mawlai Mawroh, Shillong-793008, Meghalaya

5. Assistant General Manager, (Contract)
Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, NEF Region,
Mawlai Mawroh, Shillong-793008, Meghalaya

6. Divisional Manager (Shillong)
Food Corporation of India, Divisional Office, NEF Region,
Mawlai Mawroh, Shillong-793008, Meghalaya
… Respondent(s)



1 4
Page of

2026:MLHC:1039
____________________________________________________________
Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge

Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B.K. Singh, Adv.

i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:

ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. The writ petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated
19.12.2025, whereby the petitioner’s adhoc Handling and Transportation
Contract was terminated and security deposits and bank guarantees forfeited,
apart from imposition of 2(two) years debarment on participation of the
petitioner on any tender of the respondents.

2. Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that against the said termination as given in the Model Tender
Form (MTF) at Clause XVIII, under the caption Laws Governing The
Contract & Dispute Resolution, a representation dated 22.12.2025, under
Clause XVIII (b) had been preferred before the Grievance Redressal
Committee (GRC), of the respondents, but however, till date there has been
2 4
Page of

2026:MLHC:1039
no outcome. It is further submitted that the debarment of the petitioner is also
without any authority, inasmuch as, nowhere in the Clauses of the MTF is
debarment provided, except in the case if the security deposit is not furnished
in time. The learned counsel submits that in spite of this issue that remains,
it would suffice at this stage if the respondents are directed to dispose of the
representation of the petitioner within a time frame, and also take into
consideration the debarment of the petitioner.

3. Mr. B.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submits
that the delay in disposing of the representation of the petitioner is due to the
restructuring of the Dispute Redressal Committee, and further submits that
the Dispute Redressal Committee will now take up the matter expeditiously,
if permitted and will dispose of the same, within a period of 45(forty-five)
days, from the date of this order.

4. On this undertaking given by the respondents without further
lingering with the matter, this writ petition is accordingly disposed of by
directing the respondents that the representation of the petitioner dated
22.12.2025, annexed at Annexure-14 to the writ petition, be disposed of by
the Dispute Redressal Committee, within a period of 45(forty-five) days
from the date of this order. The matter regarding the debarment shall also be
taken into consideration, and a speaking order passed thereon.
3 4
Page of

2026:MLHC:1039

5. As ordered above, the writ petition stands closed and is
accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE



Meghalaya
15.09.2026

“V. Lyndem AR-PS”

4 4
Page of

VALENTINO LYNDEM
Digitally signed by:
Signed On: 15-09-2026 19:47:50 IST
Verified