Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010107462023 2025:GAU-AS:11983 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2816/2023 MODERN ELECTRICALS REPRESENTED BY DEBOTOSH ROY, VILL. AND P.O. LATU, DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN- 788781. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, POWER (ELECTRICITY) DEPARTMENT, A- BLOCK, 4TH FLOOR, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (COMMERCIAL) ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED CAR BIJULI BHAWAN 5TH FLOOR PALTANBAZAR GHY-01. 3:MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED BIJULI BHAWAN PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI-01. 4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BADARPUR ELECTRICAL CIRCLE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED CAR Page No.# 2/4 BADARPUR P.O. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710. 5:ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER KARIMGANJ ELECTRICAL DIVISION APDCL KARIMGANJ Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. M A CHOUDHURY,MR. A S TAPADER,MR M AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 01/09/2025 Heard Mr. M.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Das, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL, appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. 2. The petitioner herein was selected for being engaged as a franchisee of the respondent No. 2/Company to manage the local electricity distribution network in the area assigned by the franchise. In terms of such selection of the petitioner, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the authorities of the respondent No. 2/ Company on 01-12-2016. The said agreement was to be in currency for a period of 02 years w.e.f. 01-12-2016. 3. On expiry of the period of currency of the agreement dated 01-12-2016, it is seen that no order(s) were issued extending the period of the agreement after the same has elapsed. However, the petitioner continued to be engaged for the work of electricity distribution in the area assigned to the franchise. 4. Poised thus, vide a notice dated 02-05-2023, the authorities of the respondent No. 2/Company Page No.# 3/4 on arriving at a conclusion that the engagement of the franchise for the distribution of the electricity being not commercially expedient, a decision was arrived at not to continue with the contractual obligations as entered with by it with the various franchises including the petitioner, herein, and accordingly, the petitioner was intimated that his contract would be terminated w.e.f. 01-06-2023. The said notice further stipulated that the same was to be considered as a final notice of termination regarding discontinuation of the operation of the petitioner w.e.f. 01-06-2023. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. This Court vide order dated 01-06-2023, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, by way of passing a detailed order rejected the prayer of the petitioner for interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no appeal has been preferred by the petitioner against the said order. 6. Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the APDCL submitted that the respondent Company has not entered into any fresh agreement for engagement of franchise and the works involved are being executed departmentally. The learned standing counsel further submitted that this Court may be pleased not 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 work involved by engaging franchises. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials brought on record. 8. The materials brought on record reveals, that a contract was entered into by and between the petitioner and the respondent company, for a period of 02 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 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. 9. This Court further is of the opinion that 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, which is clearly not permissible. 10. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered view, that the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be Page No.# 4/4 no order as to costs. Before parting with the records, this Court finds it pertinent to observe that the dismissal of the instant writ petition, shall not preclude the petitioner from availing remedies, seeking damages or compensation, if so advised, before the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction. JUDGE Comparing Assistant