JUDGMENT : Devashis Baruah, J. Heard Mr. A. C. Borbora, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. N. Dey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. B. K. Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner herein has assailed the communication dated 15.09.2021 as well as the order dated 09.08.2022 and further sought for direction upon the respondents to pay the security deposit amounting to Rs. 8,73,116/-. 3. The necessary facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the instant writ petition are as infra. 4. The Respondent Authorities had issued a Short-Term Tender Notice for appointment of Mandi Labour Contract dated 26.12.2016 in a Two Bid System thereby inviting interested financially sound parties having business competency to participate. The scope of the said work is to execute Mandi Labour Operation by appointment of Mandi Labour Contractor at a designated Paddy Procurement Centre for stencilling, filling, dumping, stitching, unloading from scale, loading in trucks/carts within FCI District Nagaon, comprising Revenue District Hojai, Nagaon, Morigaon and Karbi Anglong for Kharif Marketing Season (KMS) 2016-17 (Sali Paddy) commencing from 01.01.2017 for an initial period of two months with provision to extend or terminate the contract at the discretion of the FCI or till any other alternative arrangement by the FCI. 5. In the said Notice Inviting Tender, various terms and conditions have been mentioned as to how the Technical Bid as well as the Price Bid were required to be submitted. For the purpose of the instant case, Clause No.7 of the said Notice Inviting Tender is relevant in as much as the said Clause 7 stipulates that the handling items of food grains at the Mandis will be the relevant items of operations as defined in the terms of the Price Bid of HTC circulated by the Regional Office, Guwahati. It is further seen from the said Clause 7 that the relevant items of handling in the Price Bid have seven components, i.e. (i) Filling Gunnies with prescribed Weight and Stacking; (ii) Weighment; (iii) For Breaking Stack; (iv) Loading in Trucks; (v) Breaking of Stacks and Restacking; (vi) Supply of Casual Labour and (vii) Loading/Unloading Gunny. It was further stipulated in the said Notice Inviting Tender that the rate is to be quoted on ASOR (Above Schedule of Rates) basis. 6. It was further stipulated in the said Notice Inviting Tender that the rate is to be quoted on ASOR (Above Schedule of Rates) basis. 6. It is pertinent to take note of that in the said Notice Inviting Tender, there is a reference to the Model Tender Form. A perusal of the said Model Tender Form stipulates the Schedule of Rates and Services for Handling and Transport Contractors at FSD. 7. The petitioner participated in the said Tender process and by a communication dated 04.01.2017, the petitioner was appointed as the Handling Contractor at PPC, Nagaon for a period of two months with immediate effect at the quoted rate of 319% ASOR per bag on terms and conditions as contained in the Tender Agreement. A perusal of the said appointment order dated 04.01.2017, however, do not stipulate any rates individually in respect to the seven components which form the Handling Contract. Rather, the entire Handling Contract cumulatively was the contract awarded to the petitioner. 8. The records further reveal that the said contract was extended from time to time at the accepted rate of 319% ASOR and the said extension was till October 2017. The petitioner upon completion of the contract, sought for return of the security deposit as well as the No Demand Certificate. The Respondent Authorities neither issued the No Demand Certificate nor returned the security deposit. However, after almost a period of four years, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 15.09.2021 wherein it was mentioned that on the basis of certain observations made by the CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General), there was excess payment made to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.18,77,217/-, and as such, after the security deposit was adjusted, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,04,101/-. The petitioner thereupon submitted a representation, however, to no avail. Resultantly, the petitioner had to approach this Court by filing a writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No. 1119/2022. 9. This Court vide an order dated 21.02.2022, disposed of the said writ petition at the motion stage thereby granting the liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned Dispute/Grievance Redressal Committee for redressal of its grievances and disputes, etc. by submitting its representation before the General Manager, Regional, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Assam Region, Guwahati. 9. This Court vide an order dated 21.02.2022, disposed of the said writ petition at the motion stage thereby granting the liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned Dispute/Grievance Redressal Committee for redressal of its grievances and disputes, etc. by submitting its representation before the General Manager, Regional, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Assam Region, Guwahati. It may not be out of place to take note of that from a perusal of the order dated 21.02.2022, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had duly taken note of the grievance of the petitioner that such notice which was issued on 15.09.2021 was without following the mandate of the principles of natural justice. 10. Be that as it may, in view of the liberty so granted to the petitioner vide the order dated 21.02.2022 in WP(C) No. 1119/2022, the petitioner approached the Grievance Redressal Committee by submitting a representation on 25.04.2022. The respondent No.2 vide the order dated 09.08.2022 rejected the said representation submitted, and it is under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 11. The records reveal that this Court vide an order dated 26.08.2022 while issuing notice stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 09.08.2022. The interim order thereupon continued from time to time. 12. The records further reveal that the respondents had filed an affidavit- in-opposition wherein the stand so taken is that in the report submitted by the CAG during the transaction audit for the period from April, 2014 to March, 2018, it was found that excess payment was made to the MLC (Mandi Labour Contractor) during KMS 2016-17 in so far as the appointment of the MLC for PPC, Nagaon. The CAG further observed that the items specified at Serial Nos.1 & 2 of the Price Bid ought to have been clubbed under single operation “filling up gunnies with loose grains up to the prescribed weight and hand stitching the gunnies and stacking in the said godown” and items specified at Serial Nos.3 & 4 would be termed as “destacking and loading into truck”. It was further mentioned that the CAG observed in the report that upon scrutiny of the bills passed by the FCI, DO, Nagaon, it was found that FCI, DO, Nagaon had passed bills providing separate remuneration for breaking of stacks (item No.5 of the NIT) and weighment (item No.3 of the NIT) though they were not admissible. It was stated that item Nos.1 & 2 of the Price Bid were actually the single operation in any PPC and similarly items at Serial Nos.3 & 4 were also single operations and it is under such circumstances, upon making necessary calculations, it was found that there was an excess payment of Rs.18,77,217/- to the petitioner and after deducting Rs.8,73,116/-, the notice was issued on 15.09.2021 directing the petitioner to pay the remaining amount. It was further mentioned that out of the seven works specified in the NIT, the work pertaining to breaking of stack and restacking and supply of casual labour were never undertaken, and as such, no payment for these items of work was payable to the petitioner. It was also mentioned that irrespective of multiple items of work defined in the NIT, remuneration was due to the petitioner against only those items where work have actually been undertaken. 13. In the backdrop of the said pleadings, this Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties who made submissions in the line with their respective pleadings and have perused the materials on record. 14. The materials on record would show that the Notice Inviting Tender dated 26.12.2016 was issued for appointment of a Mandi Labour Contractor. The works which were required to be carried out by the Mandi Labour Contractor have been duly mentioned in the Notice Inviting Tender. The said Notice Inviting Tender further stipulated as to how the Price Bid is to be quoted, i.e. as per ASOR. The Notice Inviting Tender further stipulated that the contract to be awarded had seven components and on the basis thereof, the rates were to be quoted as per ASOR. 15. This Court has duly taken note of the appointment order of the petitioner dated 04.01.2017 wherein it has been also mentioned that the petitioner had been appointed as the Mandi Labour Contractor for the PPC, Nagaon at the rate of 319% ASOR. 16. During the course of hearing, this Court enquired with Mr. 15. This Court has duly taken note of the appointment order of the petitioner dated 04.01.2017 wherein it has been also mentioned that the petitioner had been appointed as the Mandi Labour Contractor for the PPC, Nagaon at the rate of 319% ASOR. 16. During the course of hearing, this Court enquired with Mr. B. K. Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents as to whether there was any provision in the contract by which there could be bifurcation amongst the seven components of the work so that the payment could be made against each component. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents referred to the Schedule of Rates in the Model Tender Form. 17. It is the opinion of this Court that as to how the Price is to be quoted is different from the stipulation being there in the tender documents or in the contract entered into by and between the petitioner as well as the respondents that there can be a bifurcation of the components for making the payment. In absence thereof, it is the further opinion of this Court that the respondent could not have bifurcated the Works thereby holding that certain works were not done by the petitioner on the basis of objections so raised by the CAG. This Court also finds it relevant to observe that in the Notice Inviting Tender as well as the Work Order, it is absolutely clear that seven components formed the scope of the work. On the basis thereof, the petitioner performed its contractual obligations and being satisfied, payments were duly made. After almost four years, it would be inequitable and arbitrary to permit the respondents to contend that the seven components mentioned in the Notice Inviting Tender as well as the Work Order were in fact 3 or 4 components, and as such, it was necessary to recover the same from the petitioner. 18. Consequently, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the impugned notice dated 15.09.2021 as well as the impugned order dated 09.08.2022 are contrary to law being arbitrary and inequitable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution for which appropriate writ(s) direction(s) and order(s) are required to be passed. 19. 18. Consequently, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the impugned notice dated 15.09.2021 as well as the impugned order dated 09.08.2022 are contrary to law being arbitrary and inequitable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution for which appropriate writ(s) direction(s) and order(s) are required to be passed. 19. It is the further opinion of this Court that as the terms and conditions of the tender do not permit segregation or bifurcation amongst the components, the action on the part of the Respondent Authorities to do so and thereby to withhold the security deposit is arbitrary and illegal for the reasons already discussed above. 20. Accordingly the instant writ petition therefore stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The impugned payment notice dated 15.09.2021 (Annexure-A2 to the writ petition) as well as the order dated 09.08.2022 (Annexure-A7 to the writ petition) are set aside and quashed. (ii) The petitioner would be entitled to the security deposit of the amount of Rs.8,73,116/-. The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this instant judgment and do the needful so that the Respondent Authorities would be in a position to refund the security deposit of the amount of Rs.8,73,116/- to the petitioner. It is observed that the same be done within 45 days from the date the petitioner completes the formalities. (iii) There shall be no order as to costs.