M/s Tamanna Road Carrier A Partnership Firm v. Food Corporation of India & Ors.

: Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19 . 06 .202 6

1. Heard Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.S. Patel, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent-Corporation.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs : “1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions setting aside the impugned order dated 05.02.2026 (Annexure P/1) bearing 3 No. 449530: ZO(W)

36.0011.0(34.0)/6/2025-S&C-ZO(W), passed by the Executive Director (West Zone), Zonal Office, Food Corporation of India. 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to the respondent authorities to refund the amount illegally deducted from the running bills of the petitioner towards alleged penalty and other charges as levied, along with applicable interest. 3] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Food Corporation of 3 India issued Notice Inviting Tender S&C/13/15/NIT/2020/01 bearing dated NIT No. 14.01.2020 for transportation of food grains from RTC Akaltara to Garwah. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner firm participated in the tender process and, being found successful, was issued an appointment letter dated 15.04.2020. The contract was initially awarded for a period of two years commencing from

15.04.2020 till 14.04.2022.

4. According to the petitioner, during the COVID-19 pandemic and the consequent nationwide lockdown, the respondent authorities compelled the petitioner to transport food grains in quantities far beyond the contractual capacity. In order to maintain uninterrupted supply of food grains under the public distribution system, the petitioner arranged additional vehicles through third-party transporters and continued to perform the contract despite severe operational difficulties. It is the case of the petitioner that due to non-availability of adequate unloading space, shortage of labour and mismanagement at the destination depots, particularly at Latehar Depot, the petitioner's vehicles remained detained for prolonged periods, causing substantial financial losses. Despite repeated representations, emails and legal notices pointing out the difficulties faced during the pandemic and seeking withdrawal of proposed recoveries, the respondent authorities allegedly imposed penalties and deducted an amount of Rs.6,75,000/- from the running bills of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the deductions, the 4 petitioner invoked Clause XX of the contract and approached the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC). However, without granting an opportunity of hearing, the GRC passed an order dated 12.08.2021, which was subsequently followed by an order dated 25.11.2021 rejecting the petitioner's claim. The said orders were challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4588 of 2021. By order dated 03.11.2025, this Court quashed the aforesaid orders and remitted the matter to the competent authority for fresh consideration. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation raising the issues of illegal deductions, arbitrary imposition of penalties and applicability of the Force Majeure Clause in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Executive Director (West Zone), FCI, by the impugned order dated

05.02.2026, rejected the petitioner's claim and held that the Force Majeure Clause was not applicable. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 05.02.2026 is arbitrary, unreasonable and unsustainable in law, as the competent authority has failed to consider the material facts and documents placed on record by the petitioner. It is submitted that during the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown, the petitioner was compelled by the respondent authorities to transport quantities of food grains substantially in excess of the contractual capacity. Despite severe restrictions, shortage of labour, non-availability of unloading space 5 and detention of vehicles for reasons beyond the petitioner's control, the petitioner continued to discharge its contractual obligations in the larger public interest by arranging additional vehicles and resources. Learned counsel would further submit that the delays, if any, in transportation and unloading were attributable solely to the mismanagement and administrative lapses on the part of the respondent authorities, including failure to provide adequate labour and unloading space at the destination depots. Despite repeated emails, representations and legal notices informing the respondents about such difficulties, no corrective measures were taken. It is further contended that the respondents illegally deducted an amount of Rs.6,75,000/- from the running bills of the petitioner and imposed arbitrary penalties without any justification, even though the alleged deficiencies were occasioned by circumstances entirely beyond the petitioner's control. Learned counsel also submits that the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, vide Office Memorandum dated

13.05.2020, specifically recognized the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and clarified the applicability of the Force Majeure Clause. The circumstances faced by the petitioner, including lockdown restrictions, shortage of manpower, detention of vehicles and excessive transportation requirements imposed by the respondents, squarely attracted the Force Majeure provisions. However, the respondents failed to consider the said policy and mechanically rejected the petitioner's claim. It is further argued 6 that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4588 of 2021. Although the matter was remitted for fresh consideration, the authority has neither dealt with the specific grounds raised by the petitioner nor assigned cogent reasons while rejecting the claim. The impugned order is therefore non-speaking and suffers from non-application of mind. Learned counsel lastly submits that the petitioner was compelled to incur substantial expenditure towards unloading operations, detention charges and other activities which were outside the scope of the contractual obligations. Instead of reimbursing the petitioner for such additional work performed during extraordinary circumstances, the respondents imposed penalties and effected recoveries from the petitioner's bills, which action is wholly arbitrary and contrary to the terms of the contract. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 05.02.2026 be quashed and the respondents be directed to refund the illegally deducted amount along with appropriate compensation and other consequential reliefs.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent–Food Corporation of India submits that the impugned order dated 05.02.2026 has been passed after due consideration of the petitioner's claim and in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. It is contended that the penalties and deductions were effected strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract on account of deficiencies attributable to 7 the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner's plea regarding applicability of the Force Majeure Clause is misconceived. Mere existence of the COVID-19 pandemic does not automatically exempt a contractor from its contractual obligations. The competent authority, upon examining the material on record, rightly concluded that the petitioner failed to establish circumstances warranting invocation of the Force Majeure Clause. Learned counsel would further submit that the dispute raised by the petitioner relates to levy of penalties, deductions from bills, compensation and reimbursement of expenses arising out of a commercial contract, which involve disputed questions of fact and are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order is a reasoned and lawful order, does not suffer from any arbitrariness or procedural infirmity, and hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the dispute raised by the petitioner arises out of a commercial contract executed between the petitioner and the respondent–Food Corporation of India. The principal grievance of the petitioner pertains to recovery of penalties, deductions from running bills, claim for compensation, reimbursement of alleged additional expenses and invocation of the Force Majeure Clause. Adjudication of such claims would necessarily require examination 8 of the terms of the contract, the respective obligations of the parties and disputed factual issues relating to performance of the contract during the relevant period.

8. It is well settled that disputes arising purely out of contractual obligations ordinarily do not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when adjudication involves disputed questions of fact. In Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Kurien E. Kalathil & Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 293, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that interpretation and implementation of contractual terms cannot normally be the subject matter of a writ petition and such disputes are required to be adjudicated before the appropriate forum. Similarly, in State of Bihar & Ors. v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd., (2002) 1 SCC 216, the Supreme Court held that a writ petition is not an appropriate remedy for enforcing contractual obligations or for adjudication of money claims arising out of contracts.

9. In the present case, the petitioner's claim that the delays were occasioned due to non-availability of labour, inadequate unloading space and mismanagement on the part of the respondent authorities is seriously disputed. Equally disputed are the petitioner's claims regarding entitlement to compensation, refund of penalties and applicability of the Force Majeure Clause. Such questions would require appreciation of evidence and determination of factual controversies, which cannot conveniently be undertaken in writ proceedings.

10. This Court further finds that pursuant to the order passed by this 9 Court in the earlier round of litigation, the competent authority reconsidered the petitioner's grievance and passed the impugned order dated 05.02.2026. The scope of judicial review in contractual matters is limited to examining the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, the Supreme Court held that judicial review is concerned with reviewing the decision-making process and not the decision itself, and that the Court does not sit as an appellate authority over administrative decisions.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India & Ors., (2015) 7 SCC 728, after considering the entire law on the subject, held that although a writ petition in contractual matters is not completely barred, the High Court should normally refrain from exercising jurisdiction where the dispute relates to contractual rights and obligations involving disputed questions of fact. The Court further held that claims for damages, compensation and monetary relief arising from contracts are generally not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

12. Likewise, in U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. CG Power and Industrial Solutions Ltd. & Anr., (2021) 6 SCC 15, the Supreme Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction in contractual matters can be invoked only in exceptional circumstances where the action of the State is arbitrary, unfair or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. No such exceptional circumstance is made out in the facts of the present case. 10

13. Reference may also be made to Radhakrishna Agarwal & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (1977) 3 SCC 457, wherein the Supreme Court held that once parties enter into the realm of contract, disputes relating to performance of contractual obligations are to be governed by the terms of the contract and cannot ordinarily be enforced through writ proceedings.

14. In the case at hand, the petitioner essentially seeks adjudication of disputed contractual claims and monetary demands, which cannot be effectively examined in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. No material has been brought on record to demonstrate that the impugned order suffers from patent arbitrariness, mala fides, procedural impropriety or violation of any statutory provision warranting interference by this Court.

15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kerala State Electricity Board (supra); Jain Plastics and Chemicals (supra); Tata Cellular (supra); Joshi Technologies International Inc. (supra); U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. (supra); and Radhakrishna Agarwal & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the present dispute is essentially contractual in nature involving disputed questions of fact and monetary claims, for which writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not the appropriate remedy.

16. Accordingly, no case for interference with the impugned order 11 dated 05.02.2026 is made out. The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to avail such alternative remedy as may be available in law for adjudication of its contractual and monetary claims. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra