GUWAHATI, India, Sept. 7 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Aug. 6:

1. Heard Mr. M. A. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. R. Bora, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the APDCL.

2. The petitioner herein has assailed the order dated 02.05.2023 whereby the contract entered into between the petitioner as well as the respondent APDCL which was initially for 2 years and subsequently extended from time to time and was terminated w.e.f. 01.06.2023.

3. From the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner had entered into an agreement for deployment of collection based Distribution Franchise (DTR) in APDCL for the 3 Nos. of DTR/DTR's of Panighat Electricals SubDivision under the Badarpur Electrical Circle. The period of the said agreement was for a period of 2 years w.e.f. 01.12.2016.

4. It is further seen that although no fresh agreement was entered into, but there were certain extensions being granted from time to time. However, on 02.05.2023, the respondent company on account of the fact that the said contract arrangement between the petitioner and the respondent company was not commercially expedient, issued the impugned notice intimating the petitioner that w.e.f. 01.06.2023, there shall be no further extension to be granted. This communication dated 02.05.2023 has been assailed before this Court.

5. It is noticed that vide an order dated 01.06.2023 this Court vide a detailed order rejected the interim prayer.

6. Mr. R. Bora, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the APDCL submitted that after the discontinuation with the petitioner, the respondent company has not entered into any fresh agreement and they are carrying out the work by themselves. The learned Standing counsel further submitted that this Court may not exercise its writ jurisdiction to interfere with the communication dated 02.05.2023 inasmuch as the petitioner has no legal right to seek for an extension if the respondent company is not willing to outsource the 3 Nos. of DTR.

7. This Court has duly perused the materials on record and from the said, it appears that it was a contract entered into by and between the petitioner and the respondent company for a period of 2 years w.e.f. 01.12.2016. The respondent company thereupon had granted certain extensions from time to time, however, vide the impugned communication dated 02.05.2023, the respondent company chose not to extend the contract and on the other hand decided to carry out the work by themselves. It is the opinion of this Court that any interference with the communication dated 02.05.2023 would amount to this Court exercising jurisdiction in respect to an arena which is completely within the realm of commercial wisdom of both the parties.

8. This Court further is of the opinion if there is any interference to the communication dated 02.05.2023, it would amount to this Court re-writing the contract entered into between the petitioner as well as the respondent company.

9. It is therefore the opinion of this Court that this is not a fit case for exercise of the writ jurisdiction for which the instant writ petition is dismissed.

10. Before concluding, this Court finds it pertinent to observe that the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner to avail remedies seeking damages or compensation, if so advised before the competent Court of jurisdiction.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=tuqye3PhFs%2BBDn75ghiOpITDHmGUsZi9iH%2Bthi1pedo4F0e0f6iOkMFQVGy8s%2FpT&caseno=WP(C)/2798/2023&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010107272023&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.