S.V. Madhavan, A. Ramakrishnan, K. Sethuraman, K. Nagarathinam and S. Devapandian vs The Special Commissioner for Milk Production and Dairy Development, The Managing Director, Ramanathapuram and Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Devar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. and The Deputy Registrar, (Dairying)

P.K. Misra, J.—Heard, learned counsel appearing for the parties.

In this writ petition, the petitioners pray for issuing a Writ of certiorari for quashing the order in Appeal No. 14290/M1/98 dated 14.7.1999.

The petitioners were appointed as the Agents to sell the standardised milk by the Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation. The petitioners

were continuing as such for a pretty long period. Subsequently, a communication was sent to the petitioners to execute an agreement wherein the

petitioners were described as ""dealers"". At that stage, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Registrar, the third respondent herein. The Registrar

disposed of the matter by observing that the petitioners were ""representatives"". The Managing Director of the 2nd respondent filed an appeal

before the Special Commissioner which has been disposed of on 14.7.99. In the said order, the first respondent had quashed the order of the

Registrar. The aforesaid order has been challenged in the present writ petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners had been described as agents in the appointment order, the

subsequent description of the petitioners as ""dealers"" under the proposed agreement, is arbitrary. He further submitted that the Co-operative

Societies Act does not contemplate that any dealer is to be appointed but the Act contemplates appointment of Agent.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and on going through the records, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said order. In the

order dated 31.8.1977 it has been indicated that the Corporation has the right to terminate the agent at any time without assigning any reason. No

statutory provisions has been brought to my notice indicating that a person appointed as an agent has got some statutory right to be protected. If

the said new terms and conditions offered by the Corporation are not acceptable by the petitioners, the petitioners may not accept such conditions.

If the petitioners feel that the offering of new terms and conditions amounts to illegal termination of the agency, the petitioners may sue for damages,

if any. However, there is no justification to claim that the petitioners must be continued as agents forever.

In the absence of any statutory provision the matter is governed by ordinary rules of contract and since the agency can be terminated at any time

without assigning any reason, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. It is made clear that it is open to the petitioners to execute the

agreement offered by the respondent/Corporation or to pursue any remedy available to claim damages.

Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.