IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18820 of 2009(V)
1. M/S. CENTRAL MOTORS, MUNCIPAL BUILDING,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S.BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD,
... Respondent
2. PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
For Respondent :SRI. K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :09/07/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
----------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.18820 of 2009
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner responded to a notification
issued by the BSNL inviting applications for
appointing authorised franchisees to do sales and
distribution of BSNL telecom services. According to
the petitioner, the agreement commenced on
1.4.2008 and was to remain in force for a period of
two years. The petitioner affirms that he had
complied with other conditions as well.
2. Dispute arose between the petitioner and
the BSNL in relation to the matter of franchisee ship.
According to the petitioner, they have terminated his
franchisee ship. The petitioner submits that if there
is a dispute between the parties to the agreement,
there should be a bipartite discussion or negotiation
before invoking the arbitration provisions. According
to him this was not resorted to by the BSNL. Be that
as it may, it is a fact that the petitioner has
W.P.(C).No.18820 of 2009
:: 2 ::
approached the District Court under Section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, taking note of the
existence of an arbitration agreement
comprehending the franchisee and the BSNL. The
petitioner submits that the District Court has passed
an order injuncting the BSNL from terminating the
franchise agreement. The petitioner submits that
nevertheless, in violation of the injunction order,
they have proceeded to invite applications from
other persons for franchisee ship in the same area as
is allotted to the petitioner. Hence the writ petition.
According to the petitioner, this is also in violation of
Ext.P7, a communication issued by the DGM(Sales)
to the Chief General Manager, of all telecom
circles/Districts. Counsel for the BSNL refutes this
contention.
3. Admittedly, there is an arbitration
agreement binding the parties. It is on the said
premise, the petitioner has approached the District
W.P.(C).No.18820 of 2009
:: 3 ::
Court. If, according to the petitioner, there is a
violation of the injunction order, it is up to the
petitioner to approach the same Court for
appropriate orders. If there is any fresh cause of
action, that will enable him to approach the same
court for appropriate reliefs in that regard. In the
circumstances, I am of the view that it is not open to
the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this court
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the writ petition is closed,
without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to
approach the District Court invoking the provisions
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Sd/-
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge