Smt Padmaja vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 726 Tel

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

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

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