Tender Grievances Must Be Decided by the Designated Grievance Redressal Committee.

The petitioner, a transport contractor, challenged orders dated 28 August 2019 and 10 October 2019, as well as notices dated 15 June 2018 and 25 April 2019, concerning amounts recovered from it.

It sought to have those orders and notices set aside and the recovered amount refunded with interest.

The petitioner submitted that its grievance was covered by the High Court’s decision in M/s Tamanna Road Carrier v. Food Corporation of India and Others, WPC No. 4588 of 2021, decided on 3 November 2025; the respondents did not oppose that submission.

1. Whether the petitioner’s grievance was sufficiently identical to that in M/s Tamanna Road Carrier to warrant disposing of the petition in line with that decision.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief concerning the impugned orders, notices and recovery on that basis.

The Court relied on its decision in M/s Tamanna Road Carrier, which held that, under condition XI of the relevant tender, the Grievance Redressal Committee—not the General Manager—was the competent authority to decide the contractor’s representation or dispute.

In that case, the Court quashed the impugned communications and remitted the matter to the Committee for a decision in accordance with law, preferably within 60 days.

The Court accepted that the petitioner’s grievance was identical to the one considered in M/s Tamanna Road Carrier.

As the respondents did not oppose applying that decision, the Court disposed of the petition in its terms and in line with its reasoning.

The order did not separately analyze the petitioner’s individual impugned orders or the refund claim.

The incorporated decision quashed the communications challenged in that case and remitted the representation to the Grievance Redressal Committee for a decision in accordance with law, preferably within 60 days.

The Court made no order as to costs.