9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for its enlistment under the said scheme and the said Corporation accepted the offer of the petitioner No. 1 and enlisted the name of the petitioner No. 1 as Websi manufacturer. (d) The capacity of the petitioner No. 1 is 250 M.T. and the petitioner was always ready and willing to manufacture 50 M.T. Websi per month. However, the respondent No. 1 did not lift 50 M.T. of Websi detergent powders per month from the petitioner No. 1. (e) The petitioners noticed, in course of time, that the respondent No. 1 began to lift less and less quantity of Websi detergent powder from the petitioner No. 1 although the capacity of the petitioner was all through 50 M.T. per month. It is alleged that there is no reasonable justification by the respondent No. 1 for not lifting the registered Websi capacity of 50 M.T. from the petitioner. (f) The petitioner was appointed as the agent of the respondent No. 1 initially for the district of Midnapore, but subsequently, the petitioner No. 1 was, also, appointed as the agent for the districts of Bankura, Birbhum, Purulia and entire North Bengal excepting the district of Malda. (g) In a meeting held in the chamber of Managing Director of the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 requested for supply of referee samples to enable the petitioner No. 1 to get the referee samples tested by recognised testing house. 3. The main writ application at that stage was listed before me on December 2, 2003. When the matter was taken up for hearing the learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners submitted that the authorities concerned failed to consider the causes shown by the petitioners as yet. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 submitted that the authorities concerned would give its decision in this matter within ten days. The matter was adjourned to enable the respondent No. 1 to produce the decision of the Managing Director of respondent No. 1 on the next date of hearing. However, the Managing Director was directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the representatives of the writ petitioners and he was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order. The Managing Director of the respondent No. 1 passed his order on December 9, 2003 by which the petitioner No. 1 has been debarred as the manufacturer of Websi detergent powder and, also, as the supplying agency of the respondent No. 1. It has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bes general precaution, the scale of sampling and preparation of testing samples. He, further, draws my attention to a circular issued by the Managing Director of the respondent No. 1 dated June 26, 2002 regarding maintenance of quality of detergent and procedures thereof. Mr. Mitra submits, on the basis of the said circular dated June 26, 2002, that the penalty imposed by the respondent No. 1 is without jurisdiction. 6. Mr. Jaydeep Kar, learned advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 4, submits that both the said writ petition and the application for further reliefs are not maintainable in law. If the matter is governed by a contract, the writ petition is not maintainable since it is a public law remedy and is not available in private law field, that is, where the matter is governed by a non-statutory contract. Mr. Kar in this connection cites the decisions in the cases of Radhakrishna Agarwal and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. , State of Gujarat and Ors. v. Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust and Ors. and Merine Engineer and Ors. v. Siddeswar Halder and Ors. reported in 1991 (II) CHN 161. Mr. Kar submits that the respondent No. 1 has totally lost confidence in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imed has, by reason of subsequent changes of circumstances, become inappropriate or that it is necessary to base the decision of the Court on the altered circumstances in order to shorten litigation or to do complete Justice between the parties. 9. The said observations of the Division Bench of this Court in Rai Charan Mandal (supra) have been approved by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Shikharchand Jain v. Digamber Jain Praband Karini Sabha and Ors. . 10. In the case of B.R. Ramabhadriah v. Food Agriculture Department, Andhra Pradesh and Ors. it is observed that the Court can undoubtedly take note of changed circumstances and suitably mould the relief to be granted to the party concerned in order to mete out justice in the case. As far as possible the anxiety and endeavour of the Court should be to remedy an injustice when it is brought to its notice rather than deny relief to an aggrieved party on purely technical and narrow procedural grounds. 11. The law is, therefore, well settled that though the rights of the parties are normally to be decided on the date of the presentation of the pleading, the Court can, in the interest of justice, take note of subseque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground that such objections were technical in nature. When an investigation was launched against the petitioners regarding the quality of the detergent powders manufactured by them, the said Corporation ought to have collected the samples in the presence of the representatives of the petitioners. It is alleged by the petitioners that at the time of taking delivery of the detergent powders quality of such powders was checked. No copy of the alleged complaint of the ration dealers of Ghatal and others areas was either supplied to the petitioners or produced at the time of hearing before the Managing Director for perusal of the petitioners or their representatives. The complainants were not produced for examination by the petitioners. The observations of the Managing Director of the said Corporation that the petitioners were trying to sabotage the efforts of the Corporation are more based on conjecture than on the materials on record. The procedure adopted for penalising the petitioners are certainly opposed to the fundamental principles of natural justice and fair play. 14. Even in Marine Engineer and Ors. v. Siddeswar Haider and Ors. (supra) a Division Bench of this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
