IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 27469 of 2006(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- N. PRAKASH, FACT DEALER, KIZHURVELIL VEEDU, AKKAL P.O., (VIA) KARINAGANOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-691 013. 4. THE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, FACT LTD., SREEKUMAR BUILDINGS, CCSB ROAD, NEAR IRON BRIDGE, ALAPPUZHA-688011. 5. THE S.SAHID, KUZHIYATHU PEZHUVILA VEEDU, AKKAL P.O., (VIA) KARINAGANOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. KOCHUMOL KADAVATH R4 BY ADVOCATES SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR & SRI.ANIL D. NAIR R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2011, THE COURT ON ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SD WPC NO. 27469/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER DATED 08.08.1995 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT P2 COPY OF THE AGREEMENTENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT P3 COPY OF TE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CR NO. 70/05-06 DATED 10.10.05 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT P4(a) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.08.2006 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT P4(b) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.08.2006 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT P5 COPY OF THE LETTER NO. KTR NO.156/06 DATED 23.08.2006 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER P5 COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMAD DATED 25.04.2007 (I.A. NO. 12323/2007 P6 COPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE NO. 255/07 DATED 25.04.2007 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMAD RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS R4(a) COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 25.07.2006 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE 5TH RESPONDENT AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT CORPORATION TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE SD S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.27469 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a dealer of goods manufactured by the 4th respondent Company, which is a Government Company. The contract between the 4th respondent and the petitioner is covered by Ext.P2 agreement. According to the petitioner, as per Ext.P2 agreement, the petitioner has been allotted the area of 'Akkal' for doing business,which is within the Elamad Panchayat. The petitioner has thus been conducting business in accordance with Ext.P2 agreement. While so, the 4th respondent granted a dealership to another person for conducting similar business at Pullipacha in Velinalloor Panchayat. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent is the person, to whom such dealership has been granted. But, instead of conducting business at Pullipacha in Vlinalloor Panchayat, that person is conducting business in Akkal itself within the area allotted to the petitioner, is the complaint of the petitioner in this writ petition. W.P.(C)No.27469/06 2 2. The petitioner has filed Exts.P4 (a) and P4(b) representations in this regard. Dissatisfied with the lack of response from the 4th respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “a. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction compelling and commanding the respondents to four to ensure that the fifth respondent conduct his Dealership business in the place allotted to him by the second and fourth respondent. b. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction compelling and commanding the second respondent to consider Exhibit P4(a) representation in accordance with law and to take appropriate actions for the violation of the letter of authorization given to the fifth respondent for conducting the manure dealership business, as expeditiously as possible and within a time frame that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court c. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction compelling and commanding the fourth respondent to consider Exhibit P4(b) representation in accordance with law and to take appropriate actions for the violation of the agreement with the respondent, as expeditiously as possible and within a time frame that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.” 3. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein they have taken the stand that the petitioner does not have any exclusive right to conduct business at Akkal and it is for the 4th respondent to decide as to where the dealers of the 4th respondent should conduct business. According to them, nothing prevents the 4th respondent from allowing another W.P.(C)No.27469/06 3 dealer to conduct business in Akkal itself. They would further contend that despite the difference in names, Pullipacha comprises of the area of Akkal and occasionally people refer to Pullipacha also as Akkal. It is also submitted that the 2nd dealership is given to one Sri. S. Abdul Saheed, residing at Panayil House, Akkal P.O., Karinganoor, (via) Kollam as per Ext.R4(a). The 5th respondent is Sri. S. Sahid, Kuzhiyathu Pezhuvila Veedu, Akkal P.O., (via) Karinganoor, Kollam. He would contend that he is not conducting any business as dealer of the 4th respondent. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed for more than one reason. First of all, the petitioner has not been able to point out violation of any of his rights under Ext.P1 agreement. In the absence of any violation of his rights, I do not think that he can maintain a writ petition in respect of the subject matter. Secondly, the 4th respondent themselves would contend that it is in their absolute discretion to allow one or more dealer to do business in any area. They would submit that they have allowed another dealer to conduct business in Akkal as per Ext.R4 (a) agreement which does not violate the agreement W.P.(C)No.27469/06 4 with the petitioner. Lastly, the real person who has been given another dealership is not before me. The 5th respondent arrayed in this writ petition is not the person who has been given the 2nd dealership, which is the subject matter of the complaint of the petitioner. In the above circumstances, especially in so far as the petitioner has not been able to satisfy this court that any of his rights have been violated by the 4th respondent, I am of opinion that the writ petition is without merits. Accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.27469/06 5 W.P.(C)No.27469/06 6