Only the designated Grievance Redressal Committee may adjudicate contractual disputes under tender conditions.

The Food Corporation of India invited a tender for transportation of food grains from RTC Kargi Road to Latehar, in which the petitioner was the successful bidder and was awarded the work order.

A penalty was subsequently imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the penalty by submitting a representation/dispute before the Grievance Redressal Committee (“GRC”).

However, the dispute was forwarded to the General Manager, who passed an order dated 25.11.2021, following an earlier communication/order dated 12.08.2021 issued by the Assistant General Manager (Contract), Zonal Office (West), Mumbai.

The petitioner sought quashing of these orders and a direction to the GRC to adjudicate the dispute on merits.

The petitioner relied on the decision in WPC No. 4588 of 2021, involving the same parties and an identical issue, and the respondents did not oppose disposal of the petition on the same terms.

Whether the General Manager was competent to decide the petitioner’s representation/dispute under Condition XI of the tender, or whether exclusive jurisdiction lay with the GRC.

Whether the orders/communications dated 12.08.2021 and 25.11.2021 were liable to be quashed and the dispute remitted to the GRC for decision on merits.

The Court applied Condition XI of the tender, which designated the Grievance Redressal Committee as the competent authority to consider and decide disputes arising under the contract.

The Court held that an authority lacking jurisdiction under the tender conditions cannot adjudicate the contractor’s representation, and that a dispute must be decided by the authority contractually designated for that purpose.

The Court also followed its earlier decision in WPC No. 4588 of 2021, decided on 03.11.2025, which concerned the same grievance and relief.

The petitioner’s grievance related to a penalty imposed under the transportation contract. Although the petitioner had submitted the dispute to the GRC, the matter was forwarded to the General Manager, who proceeded to decide it.

On examining Condition XI, the Court found that the GRC alone was competent to determine such a representation; therefore, the General Manager’s consideration of the dispute was contrary to the contractual allocation of authority.

Since the issue was identical to that decided in the earlier case, and the respondents did not contest the petitioner’s submission, the Court applied the earlier ruling and directed that the dispute be considered afresh by the competent GRC.

The communication/order dated 12.08.2021 and the order dated 25.11.2021 were quashed.

The matter was remitted to the respondent GRC to decide the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law, preferably within 60 days from the date of receipt or submission of a copy of the order.

No order was made as to costs.