The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit concerning the blacklisting of trucks by the Corporation under the Himachal Pradesh Ex-servicemen Corporation Act, 1979, as the Act did not empower the Corporation to determine such issues.

V.K. Gupta, C.J.

1. A letter dated 8th August, 2005 issued by the Manager, H.P. Ex-servicemen Corporation, Camp Office, Barmana, District Bilaspur and addressed to the respondent-plaintiff gave rise to a cause of action to him to file a suit for declaration with consequential relief for permanent injunction. For ready reference, the text of the letter is reproduced hereunder, which reads thus:

It has been reported by the ACC Authorities that your truck No. HP-24-3510 was loaded on 07/8/2005 to Anandpur Sahib vide excise invoice No. 53027 (LA No. 118381), but the cement has been sold by you in H.P., other than delivering the material at appropriate place, which is clear cut violation of undertaking given by you.

Keeping in view the unlawful activity committed by you, your both trucks viz. HP 24-3510 and HP 24-5510 are blacklisted. You are further warned to submit the reply why you have committed such lapse and for this acts of breach of contract, your truck should not be delisted from the carriage of cement.

2. It is the common case of the parties that the respondent-plaintiff owns two trucks bearing registration Nos. HP-24-3510 and HP-24-5510. It is also the common case of the parties that truck No.HP-24-5510 was not involved in any incident and that it is the alleged involvement of only truck No. HP-24-3510 based upon which the aforesaid impugned action of black listing of both the trucks was taken and carried out by the petitioners-defendants.

3. The allegation of the petitioners-defendants against the plaintiff-respondent was that there was some irregularity with respect to the carriage of 200 bags of cement from the factory at Barmana to Anandpur Sahib, the said cement having initially been loaded at the factory at Barmana on truck No. HP-24-3510. The allegation was that 200 bags of cement meant for Anandpur dump for unloading even though were taken there, on the way at a place called Bhatoli 100 bags were unloaded but subsequently 100 bags were purchased once again by the driver from a non dealer, namely, M/s. Sharma Cement Store at Delhi. Whatever be the effect of this allegation and whatever be the effect of the denial thereof by the plaintiff-respondent, the net result was the black listing of the plaintiff-respondent by the petitioners-defendants with respect to both the trucks despite the fact that the other truck had nothing to do with the aforesaid alleged unsavory incident.

4. It was no part of any allegation by the petitioners that the plaintiff-respondent was in any way involved with the aforesaid unsavory incident. The tone and tenor of the letters issued by the petitioners as well as ACC pointed out only to the acts of omission and commission allegedly committed by the driver of truck No. HP-24-3510 arid none by the plaintiff-respondent.

5. It was in the aforesaid background that the plaintiff-respondent filed the aforesaid suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction in which the following prayers were made:

PRAYER:

In the light of submission as made above, plaintiff seeks the indulgence of this Hon'ble Court for the following reliefs:

(a) That plaintiff is entitled to get his trucks bearing registration No. HP-24-3510 and HP-24-5510 engaged with the H.P. Ex-servicemen Corporation Barmana being ex-serviceman and letter No. 775 dated 8.8.2005 is illegal, mala fide in nature, null and void and may be declared so.

(b) That the defendants be directed to engage vehicles of plaintiff bearing No. HP-24-3510 and HP-24-5510 with the Corporation as usual and they may be restrained permanently from interfering with the working and business of plaintiff in any manner.

(c) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the light of facts and circumstances of the case.

6. The suit was accompanied by an application for grant of temporary injunction filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

7. The learned trial Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bilaspur vide order da