JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, CJ. Heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. C. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Dr. H. Sarma and Ms. J.S. Das, learned counsel for the sole respondent. 2. The instant writ appeal is filed on behalf of the appellants being aggrieved with the order dated 26.09.2019 passed in WP(C) No.4882/2019. Vide impugned order dated 26.09.2019, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed on behalf of the writ petitioner/sole respondent herein and directed the appellants to process the bills of the sole respondent/writ petitioner by following the recommendation of the four members committee and clear the outstanding dues within a period of 60(sixty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. 3. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that the appellants published a Notice Inviting E-Tender (NIET) dated 30.10.2017 for awarding the contract of Handling and Transport Contract, Ex-Rly Siding, Tinsukia to FSD Laipuli via weighbridge including Handling works at FSD Laipuli (distance 7 K.M.) under the two-bid tendering system. 4. The sole respondent/writ petitioner along with other bidders participated by submitting its bid. Being a successful bidder, the aforementioned contract was awarded to the sole respondent/writ petitioner. However, a dispute arose when the appellants unilaterally reduced the distance of transportation from 7 km to 5.2 km. 5. The respondent/writ petitioner challenged the said action of the appellants by preferring the captioned writ petition, WP(C) No.4882/2019, mainly, contending that the actual distance covered by the trucks included two trips to the private weighbridge, viz. Ramudyog Weigh-bridge. It is claimed that since there was no state run weighbridge in the vicinity of New Tinsukia station, the empty trucks had to be sent to the weighbridge for measuring the tare weight (un-laden weight) and thereafter, the loaded trucks had to be sent for measuring the weight so as to work out the actual load carried by the trucks. Since the un-laden and laden weight of the trucks were recorded in the said weighbridge as per the instruction and with the knowledge of the appellants, the actual distance traversed by the trucks was as per the reflection made in the NIET and in such circumstances, the appellants cannot exclude the said distance while calculating the amount payable by altering the conditions of the contract agreement. 6. 6. The said claim of the sole respondent/writ petitioner was disputed by the appellants. However, the learned Single Judge, after considering the Report of the Committee which was constituted to verify the actual distance traversed by the trucks of the sole respondent/writ petitioner as well as after considering Note-3 of the Model Tender Form, has rejected the opposition of the appellants and passed the impugned order dated 26.09.2019 allowing the claim of the sole respondent/writ petitioner. The operative portion of the impugned order dated 26.09.2019 is reproduced hereunder: “I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and have also meticulously gone through the materials available on record. The basic facts of the case are not in dispute. Therefore, this Court does not deem necessary to enter into a detail discussion on the facts of the case brought on record by both the parties. Suffice it to mention herein that the e-tender notice had clearly indicated that the estimated distance to be covered between the relevant points is 7 kms and the trucks were to cover a distance between fixed point. Therefore, it is apparent on the face of the record that the respondents were aware of the actual distance the lorries deployed by the writ petitioner would have to cover in each trip. The letter of appointment dated 17.01.2018 also establishes the said fact. It further transpires from the record that in view of the objection raised by the accounts department, a question arose as to the admissibility of the claim of the writ petitioner based on 7 kms distance. Taking note of the issue, by order dated 03-08-2018, the RO Assam had constituted a four members committed of senior officials of the FCI including the Area Manager, DO, Dibrugarh so as to enquire into the matter and submit a report. Accordingly, the Committee had submitted a report. The relevant portion of the report submitted by the “four member” committee is reproduced herein below for ready reference : “Accordingly the committee on 04.08.2018 along with Area Manager, DO Dibrugarh visited Rly Siding New Tinsukia. Area Manager briefed that the procedure of double weighment (taking gross weight at Ramudhyog Pvt. Weighbridge and again taking gross weight at Weighbridge at FSD Laipuli) is being followed during movement of trucks from Rly Siding New Tinsukia to FSD Laipuli. Area Manager briefed that the procedure of double weighment (taking gross weight at Ramudhyog Pvt. Weighbridge and again taking gross weight at Weighbridge at FSD Laipuli) is being followed during movement of trucks from Rly Siding New Tinsukia to FSD Laipuli. The committee also feels that as there is no weighbridge attached to the Rly siding the existing procedure of double weighment being followed is unerring as this measure is able to curb transit losses and any misappropriation enroute. The committee alongwith Area Manager decided to verify the distance involved during movement of trucks Ex-Rly Siding New Tinsukia to FSD Laipuli via weighbridge i.e. Pvt. weighbridge Ramudyog. The committee followed the guidelines articulated on Chapter 3 under the heading Weighment of Stock of Hanbook on Movement Operations in Food Corporation of India which states that “Where the stocks are moved by trucks the same should be weighed on lorry weigh-bridge provided in the godown, in case the good siding is within reasonably short distance. Where the distance is more, it may be weighed on private bridge nearby the railway station and thereafter again in the depot at the lorry weigh-bridge. The procedure involved during movement of trucks Ex-Rly Siding Tinsukia to FSD Laipuli via weighbridge i.e. Pvt. weigh-bridge Ramudyog is detailed below: The trucks were at first place at weigh-bridge Ramudyog for taking tare weight. Then after taking tare weight the trucks are moved to Rly Siding New Tinsukia for getting load. After loading the loaded truck were again moved to nearest Pvt. Ramudyog weigh-bridge for taking gross weight and trucks piled to FSD Laipuli. At FSD Laipuli the trucks were again weight at lorry weigh-bridge attached to the godown. By following this measure of double weighment the scope of misappropriation of stocks enroute is nullified so also is very much effective in curbing transit losses.” A perusal of the aforesaid report leaves no room for doubt that, after a threadbare analysis of the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, the Committee had come to the conclusion that the total distance covered in this case would be 6.7 kms, which was the actual distance covered during the movement of truck from Ex-Rly Siding New Tinsukia to FSD Laipuli. The report of the committee has neither be rejected by the respondents authorities nor has the counsel for the respondents pointed out any irregularity on the said report. The report of the committee has neither be rejected by the respondents authorities nor has the counsel for the respondents pointed out any irregularity on the said report. Moreover, the NIET itself mentioned that the route would be via weigh-bridge. If that be so, this Court would be left with no option but to assume that the report reflects the correct factual position. Since the report supports the claim of the writ petitioner, I find force in the submission of Mr. Choudhury that the decision of the respondents to reduce the distance from 7 km to 5.2 km was arbitrary and hence, liable to be set aside. Mr. Singh has referred to Note-3 and the Model Tender Form to argue that the writ petitioner would not be entitled the claim for “tare weight”. Since the said submission is based on Note-3 of the Model Tender Form, I feel it appropriate to extract the said clause for ready reference:- “3. The transport charges are payable for the distance covered by loaded lorries/any other vehicle and not for distances covered on return journey or from garage to place of loading or back to garage. Payment on net weight basis envisaged in the note above applies to handling operations also.” A plain reading of Note-3 of the Model Tender Form would demonstrate on the face of the record that the said clause would apply only to return journey or journey from garage to place of loading or back to garage, which is not in the case in hand. In this case, the respondent has denied the distance traversed by the loaded truck for the “tare weight” (to the weigh bridge, empty truck) and the laden truck. If that be so, Note-3 of the Model Tender Form cannot have any bearing in the facts of the present case. As noted above, it is the finding of the committee constituted by the respondents themselves that total distance covered by the loaded truck was 6.7 kms. Therefore, permitting the respondent to reject the petitioner’s plea by ignoring such findings of the committee, in the opinion of the Court, would amount to depriving the petitioner of his genuine dues under the law. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds. The petition is hereby allowed. Therefore, permitting the respondent to reject the petitioner’s plea by ignoring such findings of the committee, in the opinion of the Court, would amount to depriving the petitioner of his genuine dues under the law. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds. The petition is hereby allowed. The respondent shall now process the bills of the petitioner by following the recommendation of the four members committee and clear the outstanding dues within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to cost.” 7. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned order, while reiterating that as per Note-3 of the Model Tender Form, transport charges are only payable for the distances covered by the loaded lorries and not for the distances covered by the empty lorries. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has misinterpreted Note-3 of the Model Tender Form without reading the same in conjunction with Clause 2 and 6 of the price bid, which in clear terms provides that the claim for transportation charges would be on per metric ton-per kilometre basis for transportation of food-grains by loaded lorries. 8. On a pointed query, learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that the lorries were required to report at the Railway Station and from there had to go to the weighbridge situated at 1.4 km away and after giving the tare weight, again required to return to the Railway Station where loading process started. 9. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any of the clauses of the tender document or other related documents, which clarifies that the lorries were required to travel up to a particular weighbridge situated at a distant place from the Railway Station, where the lorries were supposed to report, for recording of tare weight and the transporter is not supposed to get any payment for the distance covered by the empty lorries from the Railway Station to the weigh bridge. In the absence of the said clarification given in the tender document, we are of the view that the action of the appellants to unilaterally reducing the distance of transportation from 7 km to 5.2 km amounts to altering the conditions of the NIT. In the absence of the said clarification given in the tender document, we are of the view that the action of the appellants to unilaterally reducing the distance of transportation from 7 km to 5.2 km amounts to altering the conditions of the NIT. Hence, we do not find any case for interference in the impugned order dated 26.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.4882/2019. Resultantly, the instant writ appeal is dismissed.