Item No.11
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
W.A.No.157 of 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)
1. The appellant/writ petitioner has filed the present appeal being
aggrieved by the common order dated 12.02.2019 passed by the
learned Single Judge in two writ petitions filed by her, registered as
W.Ps.No.29889 of 2018 and 740 of 2019, praying inter alia for
declaring the action of the respondents No.2 to 4/Telangana State
Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited of having blocked her distribution code in E-Seva, thus preventing her from supplying 10,000 liters of milk every day as illegal.
2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge observed that initially the respondents No.2 to 4/Federation had stopped entertaining the indents sought to be placed by the appellant/writ petitioner for supply of milk, as she had failed to place an indent for daily supply by 3:00 PM. Thereafter, the respondents No.2 to 4/Federation had terminated the dealership of the appellant/writ petitioner. On account of the subsequent cancellation of dealership, the learned Single Judge disposed of W.P.No.29889 of 2018 filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. As for the other writ petition, W.P.No.740 of 2019, the learned Single Judge observed that since the appellant/writ petitioner W.A.No.157 of 2019 Page 1 of 3 had questioned the competence of the respondents 2 to 4/Federation to forfeit a security deposit of Rs.15,00,000/- made by her, permission was granted to her to approach the respondents No.1 to 4/Federation for refund of the said amount and directions were issued to the respondents No.2 to 4/Federation that in the event such a representation is made, a decision may be conveyed to her within three weeks from receipt of her representation.
3. Admittedly, the appellant/writ petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents No.2 to 4/Federation on 21.02.2019, which was considered and disposed of by the respondents No.2 to 4/Federation, vide letter dated 14.03.2019. In the interregnum, without reserving her right to file an appeal, the appellant approached the respondents No.2 to 4/Federation with a representation. After making a representation, the appellant/writ petitioner had filed the present appeal on 27.02.2019.
4. In our opinion, the appellant/writ petitioner having taken a decision to comply with the impugned order and approach the respondents No.2 to 4/Federation by making a representation to seek refund of the security deposit, without reserving her right to file the present appeal, the same is not maintainable. Even otherwise, on the respondent/Federation rejecting the request of the appellant/writ petitioner for refund of the security deposit, vide letter dated 14.03.2019, a fresh cause of action had accrued in her favour. If W.A.No.157 of 2019 Page 2 of 3 aggrieved by the said decision, she is entitled to seek appropriate legal recourse.
5. The present appeal is accordingly disposed of, as not only not maintainable, but also as infructuous, along with the pending applications, if any. It is for the appellant/writ petitioner to seek appropriate legal recourse, if aggrieved by the decision of the respondents No.2 to 4/Federation dated 14.03.2019.
______________________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ ______________________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 08.03.2021 JSU/pln W.A.No.157 of 2019 Page 3 of 3