High Court · 2012

Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Sarma, learned counsel on behalf of Ms. U. Baruah, learned SC, ASTC. The petitioner is aggrieved by Anenxure-7 letter dated 29.05.2010 by whi ch franchisee with whom Assam Courier Service was terminated. According to the p etitioner, he being an agent of the ASTC, the agency could not have been termina ted by a stroke of pen as has been done by the impugned order dated 29.05.2010. While entertaining the writ petition by order dated 20.08.2008 the question of m aintainability of the writ petition as was raised by the learned SC, ASTC, was k ept open to be decided at the time of admission hearing. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Corporation, it has bee n stated thus: (cid:28)5. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph-2 of the writ petition the deponent states that M/s. Assam Courier Service, in short the firm, had ente red into an agreement with the Corporation on 07.02.2006 to run a Courier /Mail Service jointly with the Corporation w.e.f. 15.02.2006 on earning sharing basis. The agreement was made for ten years subject to satisfactory service of the Fir m and fulfilment of the terms and conditions. As per the terms of the agreement the ASTC will provide free space to the firm for carrying out booking and sortin g of mail at Paltanbazar and all other stations where the Firm continues the cou rier service and also arrange to carry the mail /parcel bags inside the bus. The mail /parcel handling, loading, unloading and delivery of mail and parcels is t he sole responsibility of the Firm. The existing employees of the Corporation wi ll render help when necessary. Further, as per the agreement the booking, cash c ollection and other related works will done by the staff appointed by the firm a nd one staff of the Corporation will be assigned to look after the procedure. Th e Firm also appoints its own agent to carry on the work of courier service in an y other ASTC bus counters in different places as may be required from time to ti me.

7. That with regard to the statements made in paragraphs-6, 7, 8 and 9 of the wr it petition the deponent states that admittedly the petitioner was appointed by the Firm as its Agent at Tezpur. His service was terminated by the Firm. The pri vate respondent is also alleged to have been appointed by the firm to carry on t he courier service on behalf of the firm and not by the ASTC. The ASTC has no ro le to play in that regard. In this connection the deponent further reiterates an d reaffirms the statements made herein above. The deponent further states that t he petitioner by his own admission is an agent under Assam Courier Service at Te zpur and, as such, he cannot claim any relief against the ASTC. Though the petit ioner has filed the writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 29.05.201 0 issued by the Firm, the Firm has not been made party in this case. On the othe r hand, the answering respondents have been made party in this case to create co nfusion. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismiss ed with costs as not being maintainable. (cid:29) From the above, what is seen is that M/s. Assam Courier Service had entered int o an agreement with ASTC to run the courier /mail service jointly with the Corpo ration on earning sharing basis. The related works are to be carried out by the authorised agent/employee and one staff of the Corporation is to look after the procedure. It is the categorical stand of the Corporation that the service of th e petitioner was dispensed with by the respondent No. 5, the respondent Corporat ion has denied the liability in the matter. In this connection, the Corporation has enclosed a copy of the agreement to the counter affidavit. The petitioner has claimed that by the impugned order the agency itself has been terminated, but on perusal of the Annexure-7 order dated 29.05.2010, it appear s that the letter has been writ by one Shri Nakib Choudhury for Assam Courier Se rvice dispensing with the franchisee w.e.f. 01.06.2010. By the said letter, the petitioner was directed to deposit all the materials to the representative of As sam Courier Service. There is no engagement letter issued in favour of the petitioner. Apart from tha t, termination of franchisee was also not done by the ASTC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexures- 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the documents annexed to the writ petition to show that certain amounts were rec eived by the ASTC. But on perusal of the said documents, it is seen that Annexur e-1 is related to Assam Courier Service. Annexure-2 and 3 are also the documents showing the receipts from ASTC Courier. Annexure-4 which the petitioner claims to be appointment order, is a document issued by the Assam Courier Service certi fying the petitioner as his agent of Assam Courier Service. From the above, it cannot be said that there is any direct relationship between the petitioner and the ASTC and it cannot be said that his agency has been dispe nsed with by the ASTC. The fact of the matter is that he was an authorised agen t of Assam Courier Service and he has been discharging his duty. This being the position, the said Assam Courier Service cannot be made amenable to writ jurisdiction as the same is not an authority under Article 12 of the Con stitution of India. In view of the above, the writ petition is not maintainable and accordingly it i s dismissed. It will be open for the petitioner to approach the competent Court raising his grievance, if so advised.