IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18820 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. CENTRAL MOTORS, MUNCIPAL BUILDING, PALACE ROAD, ALUVA, REP. BY MR.MATHEW P THOAMS, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 42 YEARS. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.K.R.VINOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S.BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD, BHARAT SANCHAR BHAVAN, NEW DELHI REP. BY DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, (MOBILE AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT) 2. PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOME, BSNL, ERNAKULAM, SSA, KERALA TELECOME CIRCLE. ADV. SRI. K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.18820 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner responded to a notification issued by the BSNL inviting applications for appointing authorised franchisees to do sales and distribution of BSNL telecom services. According to the petitioner, the agreement commenced on 1.4.2008 and was to remain in force for a period of two years. The petitioner affirms that he had complied with other conditions as well. 2. Dispute arose between the petitioner and the BSNL in relation to the matter of franchisee ship. According to the petitioner, they have terminated his franchisee ship. The petitioner submits that if there is a dispute between the parties to the agreement, there should be a bipartite discussion or negotiation before invoking the arbitration provisions. According to him this was not resorted to by the BSNL. Be that as it may, it is a fact that the petitioner has W.P.(C).No.18820 of 2009 :: 2 :: approached the District Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, taking note of the existence of an arbitration agreement comprehending the franchisee and the BSNL. The petitioner submits that the District Court has passed an order injuncting the BSNL from terminating the franchise agreement. The petitioner submits that nevertheless, in violation of the injunction order, they have proceeded to invite applications from other persons for franchisee ship in the same area as is allotted to the petitioner. Hence the writ petition. According to the petitioner, this is also in violation of Ext.P7, a communication issued by the DGM(Sales) to the Chief General Manager, of all telecom circles/Districts. Counsel for the BSNL refutes this contention. 3. Admittedly, there is an arbitration agreement binding the parties. It is on the said premise, the petitioner has approached the District W.P.(C).No.18820 of 2009 :: 3 :: Court. If, according to the petitioner, there is a violation of the injunction order, it is up to the petitioner to approach the same Court for appropriate orders. If there is any fresh cause of action, that will enable him to approach the same court for appropriate reliefs in that regard. In the circumstances, I am of the view that it is not open to the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the District Court invoking the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge