1. The petitioner entered into a contract with (Food Corporation of India) FCI for transportation of the food grains from the railway Godown to the FCI Godown at his risk and cost. The contract stipulated that if there is any delay in transportation of the goods, the transporter has to pay the penalty for the delay in transportation. But, there is an exemption clause to the effect that if there is any delay for extraordinary reason beyond control of the transporter, there is no liability to pay the penalty. In the present case, during the period from November 2005 to January 2006, there was delay in transportation of food grains, the FCI; therefore, levied penalty of Rs. 2,12,370. The petitioner has paid the amount, the security deposit was refund and the cash book refunded. The petitioner after payment aggrieved by the unjust demand, has filed this petition. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that because of the terrorist activity, the delay has occurred in transportation. It is said that two of his employees were being kidnapped by the militant group and that he has lodged an FIR in respect of the said incident. It is because of the militant activity, which is beyond the control of petitioner, the transportation got delayed; hence, levy of penalty is had in law. The petitioner further relies upon the correspondences made with the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police wherein he has said that there is threat received by him from the militant organization disrupting the transportation. In the background of the said material, it is argued that the levy of penalty is bad in law. 3. The counsel for the FCI, with reference to the correspondence to Annexure 2 of the Deputy Commissioner, dated 28.11.2005, wherein it is said that according to the information received by the Deputy Commissioner, that no drivers and the workers of the transport authority has received any threat whatsoever from any corner till date either from public or from the militants and the petitioner has been directed to carry on the transportation. Similarly, Annexure 12 is a communication from the office of the Superintendent of Police, which is a Radiogram, dated 9.12.2005, wherein it is stated that necessary security arrangement has been made for transportation. The petitioner has failed to lift and transport the food grains. Similarly, Annexure 12 is a communication from the office of the Superintendent of Police, which is a Radiogram, dated 9.12.2005, wherein it is stated that necessary security arrangement has been made for transportation. The petitioner has failed to lift and transport the food grains. In view of the said material, it is said that delay in transportation is on account of the negligence. The kidnapping of the official is not a hindrance because they are not the driver and loader of the lorry. It is said that the abduction has been done by the rival bidder, who has lost the bid and the said criminal act has not been done by any militant organization. 4. Upon thorough consideration of the submission made at the Bar and the correspondences referred to, it is clear from the correspondence of Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police that there has been no threat for transportation activity and no complaint has been received from the driver and transport workers. The Superintendent of Police further stated that proper security has been provided and that the petitioner has failed to lift the goods. The said materials disclose that the delay is not on account of any militant activity beyond the control of the petitioner. Accordingly the petition as well as the connected Misc. Case No. 2747 of 2010 is dismissed.