Madras High Court
S.V. Madhavan, A. Ramakrishnan, K. ... vs The Special Commissioner For Milk ... on 13 November, 2002
Author: P.K. Misra
Bench: P.K. Misra
ORDER P.K. Misra, J.
1. Heard, learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioners pray for issuing a Writ of certiorari for quashing the order in Appeal No. 14290/M1/98 dated 14.7.1999.
3. The petitioners were appointed as the Agents to sell the standarised milk by the Tamilnadu Dairy Development Corporation. The petitioners were continuing as such for a pretty long period. Subsequently, a communication was sent to the petitioners to execute an agreement wherein the petitioners were described as "dealers". At that stage, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Registrar, the third respondent herein. The Registrar disposed of the matter by observing that the petitioners were "representatives". The Managing Director of the 2nd respondent filed an appeal before the Special Commissioner which has been disposed of on 14.7.99. In the said order, the first respondent had quashed the order of the Registrar. The aforesaid order has been challenged in the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners had been described as agents in the appointment order, the subsequent description of the petitioners as "dealers" under the proposed agreement, is arbitrary. He further submitted that the Co-operative Societies Act does not contemplate that any dealer is to be appointed but the Act contemplates appointment of Agent.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and on going through the records, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said order. In the order dated 31.8.1977 it has been indicated that the Corporation has the right to terminate the agent at any time without assigning any reason. No statutory provisions has been brought to my notice indicating that a person appointed as an agent has got some statutory right to be protected. If the said new terms and conditions offered by the Corporation are not acceptable by the petitioners, the petitioners may not accept such conditions. If the petitioners feel that the offering of new terms and conditions amounts to illegal termination of the agency, the petitioners may sue for damages, if any. However, there is no justification to claim that the petitioners must be continued as agents forever.
6. In the absence of any statutory provision the matter is governed by ordinary rules of contract and since the agency can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. It is made clear that it is open to the petitioners to execute the agreement offered by the respondent/Corporation or to pursue any remedy available to claim damages.
7. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.