THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Writ Petition No.20776 of 2014
Between: K.Diwakar And
Dated 15th October, 2014
…Petitioner The General Manager (Marketing), A.P.Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Ltd., at Lalapet, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Bussa Rejendra Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri M.Dilip Rao Counsel for respondent No.7: Sri A.Ravinder Reddy Counsel for respondent No.6: AGP for Animal Husbandry The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings in Letter bearing No.225/Mktg/JM/99-III, dated 23.01.2014, of respondent No.1, whereby he has declined to extend the agency agreement between the petitioner and the respondents for sale of dairy products.
A perusal of the record shows that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.6859 of 2006 for a mandamus to direct the respondents to continue him as distributor of dairy products of respondent No.1 as a stockist. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court by order, dated 21.04.2006, with the following observations:
“No statutory rights of the petitioner have been infringed with regard to the appointment of Stockists to distribute the Dairy Products or renewal of the distribution and the same cannot be the subject matter of judicial review for issuing a mandamus. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedies that are available to him before the appropriate forum.”
No doubt in a subsequent writ petition i.e., W.P.No.1886 of 2007, this Court has intervened and set aside the proceedings issued by respondent No.1 directing the petitioner to vacate the portion of the premises in his occupation while leaving liberty to respondent No.1 to review the performance of the agency and take appropriate decision in accordance with law.
Admittedly, the dispute arising between the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 3 is in relation to a contract of agency. Even if respondent No.1 is amenable to public law remedy, such a dispute does not fall in public law field. If any of the purported rights of the petitioner under the agreement are violated, he has to avail the common law remedy of a civil suit. That is what this Court in W.P.No.6859 of 2006 has held. Instead of availing such remedy, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed without adjudicating the same on merits with liberty to the petitioner to avail any common law remedy before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.26048 & 26049 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th October, 2014
VGB