Dispute Redressal Committee must decide the contractor’s representation within 45 days by a speaking order addressing debarment and charges.

The petitioner, a handling and transportation contractor, challenged the Food Corporation of India’s order dated 19.12.2025 terminating its ad hoc contract, debarring it from participating in the respondents’ tenders for two years, and imposing more than ₹1 crore towards demurrage and rebooking charges under Clause XI(c) of the Model Tender Form (“MTF”).

Under Clause XVIII(b) of the MTF, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.12.2025 before the respondents’ Grievance Redressal Committee, but the representation remained undecided.

The respondents attributed the delay to restructuring of the Dispute Redressal Committee and undertook to decide the representation within 45 days.

Whether the petitioner’s representation dated 22.12.2025 under Clause XVIII(b) of the MTF should be directed to be decided by the respondents’ Dispute Redressal Committee within a specified time.

Whether the petitioner’s two-year debarment and the imposition of more than ₹1 crore in demurrage and rebooking charges under Clause XI(c) of the MTF were required to be considered and addressed by a reasoned order.

The Court applied the contractual dispute-resolution mechanism contained in Clause XVIII(b) of the MTF, under which the petitioner’s grievance could be placed before the respondents’ designated redressal committee.

It also required the committee to consider the contractual validity of the debarment and the charges imposed under Clause XI(c), and to issue a speaking order.

The Court noted that the petitioner had already invoked the contractual remedy by submitting its representation on 22.12.2025, but that no decision had been communicated because of the restructuring of the redressal committee.

Since the respondents undertook to decide the representation expeditiously within 45 days, the Court considered it appropriate to facilitate the contractual dispute-resolution process rather than examine, at that stage, the legality of the termination, debarment, or monetary claims.

It specifically directed that the committee consider both the alleged lack of authority for the debarment and the interpretation and imposition of charges under Clause XI(c), ensuring that the eventual decision was reasoned.

The Court directed the respondents’ Dispute Redressal Committee to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 22.12.2025 within 45 days from 15.09.2026.

The committee was further directed to consider the two-year debarment and the imposition of more than ₹1 crore in demurrage and rebooking charges and to pass a speaking order on those issues.