Maya Satheesh vs Thiruvananthapuram Regional ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 25774 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 25774 Ker
Judgement Date : 30 September, 2024

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

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

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

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

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