Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This mandamus appeal is at the instance of the respondents in a writ application and is directed against the order dated 1st September, 2004 passed by a leanred Single Judge thereby allowing the writ application filed by the respondent No. 1 and setting aside the order dated December 9, 2003 passed by the Managing Director of the present appellant by which the enlistment of the respondent No.1 as 'Websi' Manufacturer was terminated.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of the present mandamus appeal may be summed up thus: (i) The respondent No.l is a registered partnership firm and it runs a small-scale industrial unit. The said respondent No. 1 is a manufacturer of the detergent powder. (ii) The Department of Cottage and Small-scale Industries. Government of West Bengal, adopted a decision to promote the products manufactured by diverse detergent manufacturers through the West Bengal Small-scale Industries Development Corporation Limited by taking aid of the Public Distribution System of the Department of Food and Supply, Government of West Bengal. It was decided that the detergent should be sold under a common brand-name, viz. 'Websi'. (iii) The respondent No.1 applied for its enlistment under the said scheme and the appellant accepted the offer of the respondent No. 1 and enlisted the respondent No. 1 as one of the 'Websi' manufacturers. (iv) The respondent No. 1 had the capacity to manufacture 250 M.T. of the detergent powder a month and it was always ready and willing to supply 50 M.T. of Websi' a month for distribution and sale. However, the appellant did not lift the aforesaid amount of 50 M.T. of 'Websi' detergent powder a month from the respondent No. 1. (v) The respondent No. 1 noticed that the appellant, in course of time, began to purchase lesser quantity of "Websi" detergent powder from the respondent No. 1 although its capacity was all through 50 M.T. a month. (vi) The respondent No. 1 was appointed as the agent of the appellant, initially, for the district of Midnapore, but subsequently, it was chosen as the agent, also for the districts of Bankura, Birbhum, Purulia and the entire North Bengal except the district of Malda. (vii) In the meeting held in the chamber of the Managing Director of the appellant it was decided that each 'Websi' manufacturing unit would be asked to supply the target of 7 M.T. a month to bring equality amongst the manufacturers instead of fixing the targets according to the capacity of the units pro rata linking with the sale of detergent powders. (viii) Since, the respondent No. 1 had the capacity to manufacture 250 M.T. per month and as the initial registered target for the respondent No. 1 was 50 M.T., it approached this Court with a writ application for necessary direction. (ix) The matter was listed before a learned Single Judge on April 10, 2002 when the appellant submitted before the learned Single Judge that the policy, as challenged by the respondent No. 1, had not been given effect to and in view of such concession, the learned Single Judge observed that it was not necessary for His Lordship to deal with the matter at that stage. (x) Between the period of April. 2002 and March, 2003 total 85.5 M.T. 'Websi' powder had been lifted from the respondent No. 1 and in the meantime, the respondent No. 1 manufactured 40.075 M.T. detergent powders as per the alleged production programme given by the appellant. However, from the month of January, 2003, the appellant completely stopped withdrawal of materials from the respondent No. 1 although the empty Polly packets were supplied to the respondent No. 1 for packaging the detergent powders. (xi) The Marketing Manager of the appellant on April 3, 2003 issued a show-cause notice asking the respondent No. 1 to show cause why action should not be initiated against it on the basis of allegation of the ration-dealers of Ghatal and other areas of Midnapore district that the respondent No. 1 had supplied bad quality of 'Websi' detergent powders. It was further alleged that various samples were collected from those areas and after testing the samples, those were found to be of below the standard prescribed. (xii) The respondent No. 1 replied the show-cause notice denying the allegations made against it and it was denied that the samples collected by the appellant were manufactured by the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 requested for supply of those samples to enable the respondent No. 1 to get those tested by any recognised testing-house. (xiii) The second writ application out of which the present appeal arises was at that stage filed challenging the show-cause notice. When the matter was taken up for hearing by the learned Single Judge, the learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the authority concerned would give its decision in the matter within ten days and accordingly, the matter was adjourned by the learned Single Judge to enable the appellant to produce the decision of the Managing Director on the next date of hearing. Ultimately, the appellant was directed to pass a reasoned speaking order and such order was passed on December 9, 2003 by which the respondent No. 1 had been expelled as a manufacturer of 'Websi' detergent power and also as supply-agent of the appellant. (xiv) In view of the aforesaid fact, the respondent No. 1 filed an application for further relief thereby challenging the decision of the Managing Director of the appellant dated December 9, 2003 and such prayer was allowed. (xv) Ultimately, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ application by setting aside the order dated December 9, 2003 on the ground that the step taken by the appellant was not in conformity with the provision contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) Being dissatisfied, the appellant has come up with the present mandamus appeal.;