P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Premjit Nagendran, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. Appellant is the writ petitioner in W.P.(C)No.13206/2014 who approached this Court by raising the following prayers:
“I. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction call for the records and quash Ext.P7 order issued by the first respondent proposing the terminate the franchisee of the petitioner.
II issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P6 reply submitted by the petitioner to Ext.P5 show cause notice and also the request for arbitration evidenced by Ext.P8 and take appropriate decision in the matter after hearing the petitioner.”
3. The appellant was appointed as the franchisee of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) at Alappuzha, subject to specific terms and conditions with regard to the transactions to be pursued.
It was alleged that the amounts collected by the appellant were not remitted on time and there was some instance of fraud also. In the said circumstances, Ext.P5 show cause notice was issued to the appellant and the same was replied by Ext.P6. Thereafter, Ext.P7 communication was issued to the petitioner informing that the first respondent had rejected the reply and directed to wind up the transactions with effect from 30.5.2014. According to the petitioner, Ext.P7 order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in spite of the fact that the allegation against the petitioner was not proved. But the learned Single Judge declined to interfere in the matter and dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no vested right to be heard in person before a decision was taken. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this finding is totally incorrect, as Clause 30.0 of Ext.P1 agreement itself sets out that, in the event of dispute arising out of the agreement, the same should be endeavored to be settled at the first instance by a bipartite discussion or negotiation between the parties i.e., the BSNL and the franchisee. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is under challenge in this writ appeal.
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents/BSNL submits that the idea and understanding of the petitioner is clearly wrong and misconceived. There is absolutely no objection for the respondents in entering for arbitration, in terms of the provision. It is pointed out that the respondents have got 30 days' time to appoint Arbitrator. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that, it is always open to the appellant to approach this Court by way of appropriate proceedings, if there is any failure in this regard and that the writ petition is pre-mature, as on date.
In the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds that there is nothing to be considered on merits for the time being. The matter is disposed of, without prejudice to the contentions of the parties concerned and with liberty to take up the matter in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. All the issues are left open.
MANJULA CHELLUR, Chief Justice jes P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge