Dispute Redressal Committee Must Decide Termination Representation and Debarment by Speaking Order Within 45 Days

The petitioner, M/s Arjun Nongrum, held an ad hoc Handling and Transportation Contract with the Food Corporation of India (“FCI”). By order dated 19 December 2025, FCI terminated the contract, forfeited the petitioner’s security deposits and bank guarantees, and debarred the petitioner from participating in FCI tenders for two years.

The petitioner challenged the action under Article 226 of the Constitution, asserting that it had submitted a representation dated 22 December 2025 under Clause XVIII(b) of the Model Tender Form (“MTF”), relating to dispute resolution, before FCI’s Grievance Redressal Committee (“GRC”), but that the representation remained undecided.

The petitioner further contended that the MTF did not authorise debarment except in relation to failure to furnish the security deposit within the prescribed time.

FCI attributed the delay to the restructuring of the Dispute Redressal Committee and undertook to have the representation considered and decided within 45 days.

Whether the petitioner’s representation dated 22 December 2025 under Clause XVIII(b) of the MTF should be directed to be considered and disposed of by FCI’s Dispute Redressal Committee

Whether the issue of the petitioner’s two-year debarment, including the petitioner’s contention that such debarment lacked contractual authority, was required to be reconsidered and determined by a speaking order

The Court applied the contractual dispute-resolution mechanism contained in Clause XVIII(b) of the MTF, under which a representation concerning the termination of the contract could be placed before FCI’s Grievance/Dispute Redressal Committee.

The Court also applied the principle that an administrative or contractual decision affecting a party’s rights—particularly debarment from future tenders—must be considered by the competent authority and addressed through a reasoned or speaking order.

The Court noted that the petitioner had invoked the contractual remedy by filing the representation dated 22 December 2025, but that the representation had not been decided.

Since FCI explained the delay as arising from restructuring of the Dispute Redressal Committee and undertook to decide the matter within 45 days, the Court considered it appropriate to require exhaustion of that contractual mechanism rather than adjudicate the merits of the termination or forfeiture at that stage.

In view of the petitioner’s specific challenge to the legal basis of the debarment, the Court expressly directed that the debarment issue also be considered and resolved by a speaking order.

The Court directed FCI’s Dispute Redressal Committee to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 22 December 2025, annexed as Annexure-14, within 45 days from 15 September 2026.

The Committee was further directed to consider the debarment issue and pass a speaking order on it.

The writ petition was accordingly closed.