Food Corporation of India and 4 Ors. Vs M/s T T Enterprises and Anr.

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC040019952025

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : IA(C)/307/2025

¶5

Food Corporation of India and 4 Ors represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, having its head Office at 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi 110001 2: The Executive Director (NE) Age: Occupation : Food Corporation of India Zonal Office (NE) Guwahati Assam.781007

¶6

3: The Divisional Manager Age: Occupation : FCI DO Banderdewa Arunachal Pradesh PO and PS Banderdewa Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh.791111

¶7

4: The General Manager (R) Age: Occupation : FCI RO Itanagar E Sector JNK School Building APPSC Road Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District

¶8

Page No.# 2/6

¶9

Arunachal Pradesh.

¶10

5: The Tender Evaluation Committee Age: Occupation : (Regional Office) Food Corporation of India Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Prades VERSUS

¶11

M/s T T Enterprises and Anr having its registered office at Papu Nallah, PO Naharlagun, PS Papu Nallah, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh (represented by its proprietor Shri Tadam Taku) resident of Papu Nallah, PO Naharlagun, PS Papu Nallah, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:The Union of India Age: 0 Occupation : represented by the Secretary Consumer Affairs Food and Public Distribution Govt of India New Delhi 110001

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : B K Singh, SC (FCI)

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : Dicky Panging, DSGI,Marto Kato

¶14

Linked Case : WP(C)/163/2025

¶15

M/s T T Enterprises Age: 0 Occupation : Address:having its registered office at Papu Nallah PO Naharlagun PS Papu Nallah Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh (represented by its proprietor Shri Tadam Taku) resident of Papu Nallah PO Naharlagun PS Papu Nallah

¶16

Page No.# 3/6

¶17

Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh.

¶18

VERSUS

¶19

The Union of India and 5 Ors Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by the Secretary Consumer Affairs Food and Public Distribution Govt of India New Delhi 110001 2:The Food Corporation of India Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by its Chairman and Managing Director 16-20 Barakhamba Lane New Delhi 110001 3:The Executive Director (NE) Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Food Corporation of India Zonal Office (NE) Guwahati-7 Assam. 4:The Divisional Manager Age: 0 Occupation : Address:FCI DO Banderdewa Arunachal Pradesh PO and PS Banderdewa Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:The General Manger (R) Age: 0 Occupation : Address:FCI RO Itanagar E Sector JNK School Building

¶20

Page No.# 4/6

¶21

APPSC Road Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 6:The Tender Evaluation Committee Age: 0 Occupation : Address:(Regional Office) Food Corporation of India Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. -----------Advocate for : Dicky Panging Advocate for : Marto Kato appearing for The Union of India and 5 Ors: Advocate , , , , , appearing for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, respectively.

¶22

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Date : 03-02-2026

¶25

Heard Shri. B. K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Shri D. Panging, learned counsel for the opposite party/petitioner.

¶26

2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed with the following

¶27

Page No.# 5/6

¶28

prayer;

¶29

To grant leave to the FCI applicants for scrapping of the NIT dated 25.03.2025 i.e. Tender No. FCI/RO-ITA/Rglr/RTC/RH HMY/FSD BNDFSD Koloriang/2025/143 dated 25.03.2025.

¶30

3. The facts in brief, which may required to be put on record are that an NIT dated 08.01.2025 was issued, in which, the opposite party No.1/writ petitioner had participated and was adjudged as the L-1 bidder. However, for certain a reason, the said NIT was cancelled followed by another NIT. The same action is the subject matter of challenge in the accompanying writ petition.

¶31

4. By the instant application, as indicated above, the applicant FCI wants to scrap the second NIT, for which, leave has been sought for from this Court.

¶32

5. Shri D. Panging, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1/writ petitioner has submitted that though on principle, he may not have any objection to the aforesaid action, which is intended to be taken, he submits that if the same is allowed to be done, conditions should be imposed that the rights of the petitioner which have been raised in the writ petition should not be adversely affected.

¶33

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that allowing the present prayer in this Interlocutory application shall not cause any prejudice to the challenge instituted by the opposite party No.1/writ petitioner, insofar as, the action of cancelling the first NIT

¶34

Page No.# 6/6

¶35

is concerned.

¶36

7. Accordingly, leave to cancel the second NIT dated 25.03.2025 is granted which however, shall not cause any prejudice to the rights of the opposite party/writ petitioner to maintain the challenge.

¶37

8. Interlocutory application is disposed of.

¶38

9. Writ petition being WP(C) No. 163(AP)/2025, be listed for admission hearing on 11.02.2026 , on which date, an endeavour shall be made for disposal of the writ petition.

¶39

10. In view of the aforesaid development, the interim order stands modified to the extent that in the meantime, no steps shall be taken by the FCI to go for a fresh NIT.

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Comparing Assistant

Food Corporation of India and 4 Ors. v. M/s T T Enterprises and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Food Corporation of India and 4 Ors. v. M/s T T Enterprises and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and 3 Ors. Vs Mahabir Tiwari

Moinal Hoque Vs the State of Assam and 14 Ors.

Santi Sahu Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Markir Taipodia Vs The State of Ap and 2 Others

Nabam Sonu Vs The State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Peli Ete and 27 Ors. Vs The State of Ap and 7 Ors.