Kerala High Court
Maya Satheesh vs Thiruvananthapuram Regional ... on 30 September, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2024:KER:72508
W.P.(C) No.33968/2024
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024/8TH ASWINA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 33968 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MAYA SATHEESH,
AGED 48 YEARS,
W/O SATHEESH SOPANAM (H),
PRAKKULAM,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691602
BY ADVS.
SRI.SREEVALSAN.V
SRI.P.PUSHPARAJAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK
PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,
KSHEERA BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PIN - 695004
2 THE MANAGER,
MILMA, KOLLAM DAIRY, THEVALLY,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691009
BY ADV.SMT.LATHA ANAND, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 30.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:72508
W.P.(C) No.33968/2024
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2024 The petitioner entered into an agreement with the 2 nd respondent-Manager of Milma, Kollam Dairy, whereunder the petitioner started a Milma Parlour in the Chakkuvally Hub. Ext.P1 agreement was executed for one year and it was stipulated that the Milma can extend the term for a further period of three years at their discretion. Admittedly, the petitioner continued to run the Hub beyond one year.
2. The petitioner is before this Court now alleging that her Milma Parlour is going to be taken over by the Kollam Dairy of Milma on 30.09.2024. This is in violation of Ext.P1 and in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner would contend that Ext.P1 agreement provides for three months notice before terminating the agency. The petitioner has not been issued with a three months notice. Therefore, the 2024:KER:72508 W.P.(C) No.33968/2024 :3: termination of agency is prima facie illegal.
3. Furthermore, the petitioner has invested huge amount for running the business. After one year of contract, if the Milma is extending the period, that should be for a period of three years. Since total four years period has not lapsed, the petitioner is entitled to run the Milma Parlour for a total period of four years. The action of the respondents to cancel the Milma Parlour agency is therefore highly illegal and unsustainable.
4. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. Standing Counsel submitted that Ext.P1 agreement provides for agency only for a period of one year which is extendable by three years at the sole discretion of Milma. Milma has not extended the period to three years as prayed by the petitioner. Ext.P8 would indicate that extension which was granted to the petitioner from time to time, will end on 30.09.2024. Therefore, there need not be three months notice as urged by the petitioner.
2024:KER:72508 W.P.(C) No.33968/2024 :4:
5. Standing Counsel further pointed out that from their experience for the last two-three years, it was found that Milma can conduct the distribution of milk and milk products, in a more profitable way. Therefore, Milma has decided to terminate the agency granted to the petitioner. It being a policy decision in a contractual matter, this Court shall not interfere in the proceedings of the respondents, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, asserted the Standing Counsel.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
7. Going through the pleadings in the writ petition and arguments raised by either side, I find that what is involved is purely a commercial transaction. There is no prima facie evidence of violation of principles of natural justice or any other statutory violation. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot seek for a relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2024:KER:72508 W.P.(C) No.33968/2024 :5:
8. Be that as it may, the petitioner claims that she has invested huge amount in the business. Premature termination will cause undue hardship to the petitioner. The petitioner has filed Ext.P9 representation before the Managing Director of the Union. In the circumstances, it would be only just and proper that the Managing Director considers the grievance raised by the petitioner in Ext.P9 representation.
In the afore facts, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P9 representation and take appropriate decision thereon within a period of one month.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH JUDGE SR 2024:KER:72508 W.P.(C) No.33968/2024 :6: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33968/2024 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30/08/2021.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED
02/05/2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-TENDER DOCUMENT
WITH RESPECT TO CONTRACT OF CHAKKUVALLY HUB.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 13/03/2023.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05/06/2023.
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06/Q6/2023 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC NO.
20439 OF 2023 DATED 23/06/2023.
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
KDM/58/2024/644 DATED 18/07/2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/08/2024 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.