Article 226 cannot be invoked by a private entity against another private entity for disputes arising out of contractual agreements.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

(i) Writ petition may kindly be allowed.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent No.1 to 4 or such other writ, order or direction directing the respondent No.4 to prevent new dealership to respondent No.1 in Kollam District.

(iii) The appropriate writ, direction be given to the respondent No.1 not to indulge the same business in the vicinity of the petitioner with appropriate directions be given to the respondent No.2 to make an enquiry with regarding to the illegal activities of the respondent No.1 and to take appropriate legal action against the respondent No.1.

(iv) The respondent Nos.2 and 3 be directed to stop the further proceedings with regard to the Trade Certificate or cancel the same, if any, till the disposal of this writ petition.

(v) Interim relief in terms of prayer clause No.

(ii) to (iv) may kindly be granted.

(vi) Issue such other writ, order or direction which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, so as to secure the ends of justice.

2. Apparently petitioner and respondent No.4 have executed an agreement authorizing the petitioner to carry out sales, service and spares dealership in Kottarakkara in Kollam District with the covenants and conditions contained under Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 agreement was renewed, however, the 4th respondent has not complied with the terms and conditions of the agreement and is appointing other dealers interfering with the rights available to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 agreement. During the pendency of the issue, petitioner seeks interference of the 3rd respondent and seeks direction to the 3rd respondent not to issue the trade certificate to respondent No.1.

3. On an appreciation of the entire facts and circumstances and the pleadings put forth by the petitioner, it is evident that, petitioner is attempting to resolve the dispute by and between the petitioner and the 4th respondent, who are merely private entities, not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not being any authority under Section 12 of the Constitution of India. I am of the considered opinion that, petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition necessarily has to be dismissed. Accordingly I do so, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to approach any statutory authority or any court of competent jurisdiction. All questions of law facts raised in the writ petition are left open.