SMT. NAMITA PAUL Vs. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE GENERAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND THE AREA MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS a common thread of controversy wades through the writ petitions, being W.P.(C) No. 256/2013, W.P.(C) No. 257/2013, W.P.(C) No. 258/2013, W.P.(C) No. 259/2013, W.P.(C) No. 260/2013, W.P.(C) No. 261/2013, W.P.(C) No. 262/2013 and W.P.(C) No. 263/2013, those are tied -up together for disposal by a common judgment and order. The petitioner has long experience of transporting foodgrains/sugar/allied materials into the State of Tripura and to the various other destinations. She has been awarded the transport contracts on regular basis for transportation of foodgrains/sugar/allied materials from different Railheads/FSD to different FSD/CWC godowns of Tripura by the General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, NEF Region, Shillong. For purpose of reference, the appointment letters emerged from the transport contracts have been placed in a tabular form below against each writ petitions.

(2.) AFTER successfully transporting the foodgrains/sugar/allied materials, the petitioner sought for refund of the security deposits alongwith the 'No Demand Certificates' issued by the concerned Depot Managers with recommendation for release of the security deposits. Even though the petitioner has completed the transportation in terms of the contract satisfactorily, the respondents, particularly the respondent No. 3, to whom the demand for refund of the security deposits had been raised, did not release the security deposits to the detriment of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner has filed these writ petitions for direction to the respondents for refunding the security deposits with interest.

(3.) WHILE responding to the averments made by the petitioner that for transportation of foodgrains etc., VAT/Sales Tax is not exigible, the respondents have categorically admitted that position of law as enunciated by this court. Most importantly, the respondents have admitted the entire para 5 of the writ petitions where the petitioner, inter alia, has categorically stated that 'No Demand Certificates' were duly issued by the concerned depot Managers with recommendation for release of the security deposits and those were submitted to the respondent No. 3 in due course.