( 1 ) SINCE a common question of law arises for consideration in these petitions, the same shall stand disposed of by this common order. The question precisely is whether the petitioners who are parties to what are known as Pool Agency Agreements are entitled to be represented by an advocate in the proceedings initiated by the Chief Coffee Marketing Officer, in terms of Para 11 (a) of the said agreements. The controversy arises against the following backdrop: the respondent-Board has appointed each one of the petitioners aa Coffee Pool Agents in terms of agreements executed with them which are renewed every year. The agreements inter alia provide that the petitioners shall carry on curing work of coffee pooled by the coffee planters and deliver the same to the buyers under the directions of the Board. The terms settled under the agreements envisage payment of remunerations for the work undertaken by the petitioners. Para 11 (a) of the Agreement inter alia provides that the Chief Coffee Marketing Officer may after making such enquiry as he deems fit determine the amount of loss caused to the Board by reason of breach by the agent of any of the terms of the agreement or of any instru

Click Here to Read the rest of this document