2004 (8) TMI 751 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the termination of contract by the respondent.
2. Allegations of mala fide and violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Maintainability of the writ petition and application for further reliefs.
4. Procedural irregularities in sample collection and testing.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the termination of contract by the respondent:
The petitioner, a registered partnership firm manufacturing detergent powder, was enlisted under a scheme by the West Bengal Small Industries Corporation Limited to supply detergent under the brand name 'WEBSI'. Despite the petitioner's capacity to produce 50 M.T. per month, the respondent did not lift the agreed quantity. The petitioner alleged that the respondent's decision to reduce the lifting quantity and eventually stop it was without reasonable justification. The respondent terminated the contract on December 9, 2003, citing poor quality of the detergent supplied. The court found that the termination process was arbitrary and not based on proper procedural adherence, thus setting aside the termination order.

2. Allegations of mala fide and violation of principles of natural justice:
The petitioners contended that the actions of the respondent were mala fide and opposed to the principles of natural justice. The court noted that the investigation into the quality of detergent was conducted behind the back of the petitioners, and the samples were not collected as per the prescribed procedures. The court highlighted that the complainants were not produced for examination, and the objections raised by the petitioners were dismissed as mere technicalities. The court concluded that the actions taken by the respondent were arbitrary and unreasonable, thereby supporting the petitioners' claim of mala fide.

3. Maintainability of the writ petition and application for further reliefs:
The respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the matter was governed by a non-statutory contract, citing several legal precedents. However, the court decided to consider the reliefs claimed in the application for further reliefs to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to shorten the litigation. The court emphasized the necessity of taking note of subsequent events and developments to promote substantial justice, thereby accepting the maintainability of the writ petition and the application for further reliefs.

4. Procedural irregularities in sample collection and testing:
The court observed significant procedural irregularities in the sample collection and testing process. The samples were collected without following the proper procedure laid down by the Bureau of Indian Standard, and the petitioners were not given an opportunity to be present during the collection. Additionally, the officials of the respondent corporation procured detergent powders posing as consumers, which was not in accordance with the established procedure. The court found that these procedural lapses violated the fundamental principles of natural justice and fair play.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the order dated December 9, 2003, passed by the Managing Director of the respondent corporation, allowing the corporation to initiate actions against the petitioners in accordance with the law. The writ petition and all connected applications were disposed of without any order as to cost, emphasizing the need for adherence to principles of natural justice and fair play in administrative actions.