Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 22997
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN, J
SANGANABASAPPA – Appellant
Versus
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR – Respondent
WP 105482/2016
SRI. ARUN L NEELOPANT, SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI
The court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact under Article 226 of the Constitution, emphasizing the need for appropriate forums to resolve such disputes.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Contract law - The petitioner operated a milk parlour and had an agreement with the respondent for supply of milk products, which was terminated due to alleged violation of selling above MRP - The court noted that the issue of whether the petitioner sold above MRP is a disputed question of fact not suitable for determination under Article 226. (Paras 2, 6)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court highlighted that it cannot resolve disputed facts in a writ petition, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies in the proper forum. (Paras 6, 8)
(C) Costs - The respondent's failure to assist the court resulted in an imposition of costs amounting to Rs.5,000/- payable to the Advocates’ Association fund. (Paras 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed he was wrongfully terminated for selling above MRP, while the respondent failed to contest adequately.
Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition due to the nature of the dispute and allowed the petitioner to seek remedy in an appropriate forum.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the termination based on MRP violations and the jurisdiction of the court to decide disputed facts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that it lacks jurisdiction under Article 226 to resolve factual disputes and must defer to the appropriate forum for resolution.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
The case of the petitioner is that, he is running a Nandini Milk Parlour in the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad and that the respondent had agreed to supply milk products to him. However, the said agreement has been cancelled on the ground that he has violated the terms of the agreement. Annexure-A which is dated 04.07.2016, is the impugned order by which the said agreement has been cancelled.
2. As per the impugned order, the contract has been terminated on the ground that the petitioner has been selling the products at the rate beyond the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) which he cannot do. It is not in dispute that the contract of the petitioner with the respondent can be terminated if it is found that the petitioner is selling the milk products beyond the MRP. However, whether the said allegation is true or false is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of powers under
3. The contention of the petitioner is that, he is not selling the milk products over and above the fixed MRP.
4. Unfortunately, advocate for the respondent has not been able to assist this Court. It is seen that an interim order has been passed against the operation of the termination order dated 04.07.2016 at Annexure-A to the writ petition. The respondent has not cared to file any objection or an application to vacate the interim order.
Even today, the advocate for the respondent says he is not ready to go on with the matter and does not assist the Court.
5. The allegation made against the petitioner is serious in nature, which mandates the respondent to contest the case seriously, which is not being done.
6. However, as the reason given for cancelling the contract between the petitioner and the respondent involves a disputed question of fact as already stated above, this Court cannot decide the same by exercising its powers under
7. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
8. Liberty is reserved for the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
Further taking into consideration that there had been an interim order passed by this Court on 14.07.2016 and the same is continued till today, the same shall be continued for a further period of twelve weeks from today and during the said period, the respondent will not take any coercive steps against the petitioner.
9. It is hereby made clear that, no opinion is expressed on the facts of the case and if the petitioner were to challenge the impugned order dated 04.07.2016 at Annexure-A to the writ petition, the appropriate forum shall decide the same based on the materials placed before it, without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.
Further, as the respondent has failed miserably
10. to assist the Court, a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) is imposed as cost payable by the respondent to the fund of Advocates’ Association, Dharwad.
