RAJESH BABU, S/O M V BABU AND ORS Vs. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, OFFICE OF CHIEF GENERAL MANAGERKERALA TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in all these cases is almost similar and hence it is dealt with together. The rights and liberties of the petitioners to continue after the franchiseeship agreements, which later as having come to an end by 31.12.2013, is under challenge for various reasons. For convenience or reference, the parties and documents are referred to as given in WP(C) No.2101 of 2014 unless otherwise it is admittedly dealt with, with reference to their conducts.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a franchisee of the B.S.N.L. for providing market distribution of various items such as Mobile Phones, Sim Cards, Recharge Coupons etc. Such an arrangement is being made on the basis of policy being evolved by the respondent from time to time depending upon the marketing condition and incorporating appropriate stipulations in this regard. Ext.P1 is an agreement executed by the petitioner and respondent B.S.N.L. based on the prevailing policy.

(3.) While the petitioner was continuing operations as above, he was served with a notice stating that the petitioner's performance was not up to the mark. The petitioner submitted detailed explanation vide Ext.P3, pointing out various facts and circumstances including the deteriorating circumstances under which the decided extent of sale output could not be exceed. It is also the case of the petitioner that some fragmentation/ segregation had already been incurred with regard to the area in question and further that there were instance of cross border sales as well. It is further pointed out that the B.S.N.L. had arbitrarily withdrew the retailer's commission, unless the case of private sector service providers like Vodafone, Airtel etc., which also contributed to the adverse market conditions.