Tea Buyers Association, Indian Chamber, Jinesh Dagli, Amit H. Vakharia and Musthafa Moosa vs Tea Board and The Tea Trade Association of Cochin

V. Giri, J.—First petitioner is an Association of licensed tea buyers, registered u/s 25 of the Companies Act. Other petitioners are members of the 1st petitioner Association. They approached this Court aggrieved by the direction issued by the 1st respondent, Tea Board to the 2nd respondent, the Tea Trade Association of Kochi, to start electronic auction of processed tea from 19.5.2009 onwards. The main contention taken up in this regard was that the software developed by the Tea Board, for regulating the E-auction is riddled with many inadequacies. These aspects have not been addressed in spite of complaints raised. Ultimately the tea buyers were not in a position to properly participate in the auction of different varieties of tea, which was hitherto being done with what is popularly known as outcry method.

Though it was noticed that the direction issued by the Tea Board to resort to the E-auction instead of the outcry method is within the jurisdiction of the Tea Board as such, considering the fact that almost all the players in the field in one manner or other are involved in the process of E-Auction and a revised method was being brought into vogue after a period of 55 years, this Court appointed Sri. George Thomas Mevada and Sri.S.Ramesh Babu as Advocate Commissioners, to inspect and submit a report on the aspect which have been highlighted in the order dated 1.6.2009.

Accordingly, Joint Commissioners filed a detailed report and though the Commissioners had identified certain problems in the implementation of E-Auction as such, they had expressed an opinion that E-Auction could be implemented provided certain aspects are addressed immediately.

Parties were given liberty to file their comments to the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioners. The Tea Board has filed a counter affidavit taking note of the report of the Advocate Commissioners also. Comments have been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in relation to the report filed by the Commissioners.

I heard learned Counsel on both sides. I find no reason not to go by the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioners, which has referred to the different aspects highlighted by the tea buyers as also by the representatives of the 2nd respondent. The principal aspects highlighted by the Advocate Commissioners, according to the learned Counsel for the Tea Board, has already been addressed by them as referred to in para 3 of the counter affidavit filed by the Tea Board on 24.6.2009 which reads as follows:

It is submitted that to the suggestion of the buyers that active lots should be opened in the sequential manner/broker/lot/grade CTC, Orthodox and Dust to be shown separately and not mixed, it is submitted that the Tea Board has already given direction to the NSE-iT to separate sessions not exceeding 250 lots are allowed to be held for each broker and such sessions are separately for CTC Leaf, Orthodox Leaf, CTC Dust and Orthodox Dust. So apprehension of mixing different type/category of tea does not arise. We are also taken steps for generating the brokers lot identification number in the catalogue.

Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent further submits that if any further modifications are felt to be necessary, then the issue will again be addressed.

In the circumstances, I am of the view that implementation of the revised system of E-auction should be left as such to the 1st respondent which is the statutory board. But it is made clear that they shall abide by whatever has been undertaken in the counter affidavit filed by 1st respondent pursuant to the report filed by the Advocate Commissioners. They shall also take into account any other suggestions which may be putforward before them by the petitioners or members of the 2nd respondent and the additional 3rd respondent. A statutory body like the 1st respondent, I am sure will try their best to see that the E-auction is facilitated in as beneficial a manner as possible to all the players in the field.

I do not think any further directions are required at this stage. Writ petition is closed. All Interim orders shall stand vacated subject to the rider that manual auction shall be resorted to for the auction to be conducted on 8.7.2009 as well.