The Delhi State Cooperative Milk ... vs Uoi & Another
2000 Latest Caselaw 692 Del

ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Rule.

With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.

2. The petitioner by this writ petition seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to accept supply 50,000 litres of milk per day from the petitioner according to the dividing schedule of 12 months. Petitioner also seeks a direction for respondent to enter into a permanent agreement with regard to supply of milk. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before me that the petitioner is not challenging the policy of the respondents to give preference to procurement of milk from the State Dairy Federations for the Delhi Milk Scheme. He submits that the petitioner's objection emanates out of the unfair rejection or non-placement of orders on the petitioner for the supply of milk.

3. Respondents in the counter affidavit have refuted the said allegation and explained that it was pending finalisation of the National Milk Procurement Policy that adhoc arrangements were made for the supply of milk including that from the petitioner. It is stated that pursuant to the finalisation of the National Milk Procurement Policy, in June 1999, it has been decided that the maximum quantities offered by the State Dairy Federation would be accepted and for the balance quantities contract may be finalised with cooperative societies after inviting offers by advertisements in newspapers. Learned counsel for the respondents states that respondents are adhering to this.

4. From a perusal of the petition and the counter affidavit and the documents placed on record, I find that the respondents had placed orders during the years 1994 onwards with the petitioner for supply of milk. In fact, the respondents have explained that these orders were placed to meet a crisis situation that had emerged as a result of the refusal of the State Dairy Federation and some of the Cooperative societies to supply milk to Delhi Milk Scheme on account of getting better rates from Mother Dairy. It was to meet this crisis situation that adhoc arrangements were made for supplies from petitioner, which perforce continued for long periods. The petitioner admittedly has supplied the milk and received the payment therefor. There is no dispute with regard to the said supplies.

5. Respondents have also brought on record that the supply of milk during these years from the petitioner was not satisfactory. In fact there were complaints of quality and the milk supplied not meeting the requisite standards. As a result of this, respondents in accordance with purchase order terms kept on reducing the quantity for the repeat order. Another point raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner does not qualify as a State Dairy Federation. This it is claimed is on the basis that the petitioner does not have any milk processing plant or any other facility to collect the milk from various suppliers as is the case of State Dairy Federations, based on the Anand pattern where the three tier system operates. The respondents further state that they had received complaints of their being fictitious and non-existent members of petitioners Federation. Respondent had written to the said members for verification. No such confirmations were received and the letters addressed at those addresses, were returned un-delivered, casting serious doubts on the petitioners status as apex body.

6. In view of the foregoing discussion, no writ in the nature as has been sought can be granted for the petitioner as it would amount to decreeing alleged contractual rights. Moreover, in view of the respondents' objections with regard to their experience with the quality of supplies made and the petitioner not qualifying as a State Dairy Federation, no case is made out for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations of petitioner not qualifying as a State Dairy Federation or the allegations of their being poor quality of milk supply are false and motivated. In any case this would entail adjudication of disputed questions of fact, which is yet another ground for not entertaining the writ petition.

The petition has no merit and is dismissed.