Facts
The Petitioner was appointed as a Road Transport Contractor for the Food Corporation of India (FCI) via a Letter of Appointment dated 17.05.2025
Source reference: p. 2Following alleged performance issues and various notices, the FCI issued a final notice on 12.01.2026 and subsequently terminated the contract on 09.03.2026
Source reference: p. 3The termination included the forfeiture of the security deposit and bank guarantee, alongside a two-year debarment
Source reference: p. 3Consequently, the FCI published two new Notices Inviting Tender (NITs) to be awarded at the "risk and cost" of the Petitioner
Source reference: p. 3The Petitioner filed an appeal before the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) on 16.03.2026 seeking a stay on the termination, which remained pending
Source reference: p. 3The Petitioner then approached the High Court seeking a stay on the termination and the new NITs
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the writ petition should be entertained while a parallel appeal is pending before the Grievance Redressal Committee?
Source reference: p. 42. Whether the Grievance Redressal Committee is required to dispose of the pending appeal within a fixed timeline to prevent the Petitioner's prayer for interim relief from becoming infructuous?
Source reference: p. 4Law Applied
The Court followed the principle that parallel proceedings—specifically a writ petition and a contractual/administrative appeal—regarding the same subject matter should not be pursued simultaneously
Source reference: p. 4It relied on the precedent set in W.P.(C) No. 5776/2024 (Order dated 08.11.2024), which held that where a petitioner has already availed an alternative remedy through the Grievance Redressal Committee as per the Model Tender Form (MTF), the writ court should not intervene but rather direct the Committee to dispose of the matter expeditiously
Source reference: p. 4Reasoning
The Court observed that the facts of the present case were nearly identical to the precedent in W.P.(C) No. 5776/2024
Source reference: p. 4It reasoned that since the Petitioner had already invoked the alternative remedy by filing an appeal on 16.03.2026, entertaining the writ petition would result in prohibited parallel proceedings
Source reference: p. 4However, the Court acknowledged the Petitioner’s urgency, noting that if the new contracts were awarded at the Petitioner's risk and cost before the appeal was decided, the Petitioner's grievances would become infructuous
Source reference: p. 3To balance these interests, the Court noted the Standing Counsel for FCI's submission that a deadline of 24.04.2026 was reasonable for the Committee to pass a decision
Source reference: p. 5The Court concluded that the GRC must consider the merits of the appeal and the interlinked issue of "risk and cost" contracts through a speaking order
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The Court declined to entertain the writ petition on merits to avoid parallel proceedings and disposed of the petition with specific directions
The Grievance Redressal Committee was directed to dispose of the Petitioner’s appeal by a speaking order on or before 24.04.2026 and communicate the same via registered email
Source reference: p. 5If the appeal cannot be disposed of by said date, the Committee must pass an order on the Petitioner’s interim prayer within the same timeframe
Source reference: p. 5The Petitioner was granted liberty to seek a personal hearing within seven days and reserved the right to seek further legal remedies following the Committee's decision
Source reference: p. 5No costs were awarded
Source reference: p. 5Original Court PDF
Ms Great Eastern Cargo CarriersvsThe Food Corporation Of India And 3 Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in