IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 26423 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- E.P.SYAMALA, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.LAKSHMI AMMA, PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, KANDOTH DESOM, VELLOOR AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, TRIVANDRUM - 695001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, PAYYANNUR KHADI CENTRE, PAYYANNUR - 670 307. 3. THE CHAIRMAN,KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, TRIVANDRUM - 695001. STANDING COUNSEL SRI.K.P.HARISH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: dmb WP(C).No. 26423 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 18.8.1992 P2: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 1.9.1992 P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 1.12.2009 P4: COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 1.12.2009 P5: COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DATED 1.12.2009 P6: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.1.2010 P7: COPY OF THE SECURITY BOND P8: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 19.4.2010 P9: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.4.2010 P10: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.5.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT P11: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.2672/M/88 DATED 28.7.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT P12: COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 3.8.2010 P13: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.2672/M/88 DATED 13.8.2010 P14: COPY OF THE INDEMNITY BOND FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 8.9.2010 P15: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER DATED 24.9.2010 P16: COPY OF THE SECURITY BOND DATED 22.10.2005 P17: COPY OF THE SECURITY BOND DATED 26.10.2010 P18: COPY OF THE LAND VALUE CERTIFICATE NO.5190/10 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLOOR VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 20.10.2010 WP(C).No. 26423 of 2010 P19: COPY OF THE LAND VALUE CERTIFICATE NO.5189/10 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLOOR VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 20.10.2010 P20: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 2.11.2010 P21: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.2672/M/88 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.11.2010 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 26423 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner has been appointed as an Agency Manager at the Khadi Bhavan, Payyannur. Ext.P1 is the order of appointment and Ext.P2 is the agreement entered into between the parties. According to the respondents, the rules of the Khadi Board required that the premises where agency business is carried on, should be on lease in the name of the Secretary of the Board. 2. It is stated that in respect of such agencies, stock will be supplied to the Manager concerned, to sell the goods on commission basis. This was the arrangement in respect of the agency, where petitioner was the Manager. It would appear that the land lord of the premises filed R.C.P.No.5/2002 before the Rent Control Court, Payannur, which resulted in an order of eviction. The order was confirmed by the Apex Court and finally the Apex Court, granted time to the petitioner till 31.7.2010 to surrender vacant possession of the premises. W.P.(C).No. 26423 OF 2010 2 3. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application for shifting the shop to a new premises, obtained by the petitioner on lease. When he made request for shifting, his request was considered by the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P6, granting permission subject to the usual conditions. According to the Standing Counsel for the respondents, the usual conditions mentioned in Ext.P6 required that the lease should be obtained in the name of the Secretary of the Khadi Board. This was conveyed to the petitioner as per Exts.P8 to P10. However, according to the petitioner, the land lord was unwilling for such arrangement as result of which, the petitioner could not obtain the lease in favour of the Secretary of the Board. This resulted in Ext.P13 order requiring the petitioner to handover stock to the Khadi Board and it was at that stage, this writ petition was filed. 4. By order dated 19.8.2010, this Court stayed Ext.P11 order and permitted the petitioner to continue the agency business in the new premises, and the petitioner was directed to furnish security for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the Board. In the purported compliance of this order, though the petitioner furnished Ext.P14 Indemnity Bond, by Ext.P15 communication that was declined to be accepted by the Board. By filing I.A.No.13419/2010, petitioner sought stay of Ext.P15 order. W.P.(C).No. 26423 OF 2010 3 However, taking the view of Ext.P14 Indemnity Bond did not satisfy the requirements of the order dated 19.8.2010, this court declined to grant the stay sought for and instead, allowed the petitioner sufficient time to furnish security, which was acceptable to the respondents. Again, petitioner submitted a bond which was also declined to be accepted by the Board and on Ext.P20 letter was issued requiring the petitioner to submit either a Bank Guarantee or Cash Security. Since the order dated 19.8.2010, required the petitioner only to furnish acceptable security, the direction in Ext.P21 calling upon the petitioner to furnish Bank Guarantee or Cash Security was also stayed by this Court by its order dated 18.11.2010 in I.A.No.15917/2010. 5. Now, the resultant position is that the petitioner has not so far furnished any security as directed in the order dated 19.8.2010 and on the other hand, she is still carrying on business in the new premises. At this stage, what the petitioner seeks an order requiring the Board to continue to supply products as done before without insisting on compliance with Exts.P8 to P10 referred to above. 6. Standing counsel appearing for the respondents points out that conditions of the agency business required the agent to comply with Exts.P8 to P10. It is stated that, in this case, W.P.(C).No. 26423 OF 2010 4 petitioner has so far not obtained lease deed in favour of the Secretary and therefore, agency business is liable for termination. It is also submit that in case, the petitioner is unable to comply with Exts.P8 to P10, the only remedy open is to furnish Bank Guarantee or Cash Security or at least property security and that only on furnishing such security, the Board can supply goods to the petitioner. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner, at best, is only agency of the respondents, and it is for the respondents to decide under what terms and conditions goods can be supplied. It being in the realm of contract, this Court cannot impose its views in the matter. From the submissions made by the respondent, it is obvious that unless acceptable security is furnished, the agency like the petitioner’s cannot continue to get supply of the products manufactured by the respondents. Therefore, necessarily, petitioner will have to furnish security as sought for by the respondents. 8. Petitioner is unable to furnish security in the form either the Bank Guarantee or Cash Security and the only 3rd option is to furnish property security which has been agreed to by the petitioner. The respondents also agreeable to accept the same. Now that, such a consensus has been arrived at between W.P.(C).No. 26423 OF 2010 5 the parties. I direct that it will be open to the petitioner to furnish security for Rs.5,00,000/-, by way of property, which shall be done at any rate within four weeks from today. Subject to condition, I direct that the respondents shall continue to supply products to the petitioner. 9. It is needless to say that this judgment will not in any manner, prevent the respondents calling upon the petitioner to furnish any stock statement or other statements, with regard to stocks supplied by the respondents. 10. It is also made clear that, it will be open to the petitioner to move respondents for benefit of rebate scheme, in which event, the respondents will consider request made by the petitioner in terms of the schemes. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE dmb