The Madras High Court today refused to lift state-run Aavin's ban on a fleet of milk carrying tankers operated by the wife of the main accused who was arrested two months back.
Dismissing two petitions filed by the man's wife, who owned a blacklisted transport company, Justice V Ramasubramanian pointed out that the family enjoyed a near-monopoly in milk transportation contracts for Aavin and had bagged contracts for 50 per cent of all Aavin tankers. Blacklisting the company could not be faulted as the issue concerned an essential commodity and the allegation is adulteration.
"She was engaged for the transportation of milk which is an essential commodity and a food item. When the allegation is not merely of short delivery but adulteration, the larger public interest requiring blacklisting of such persons would override the necessity for scrupulous adherence to the principles of natural justice (such as issuing notice)."
On August 19, two mini-vans carrying 45 and 50 cans of milk were seized by a sub-Inspector. Inquiries revealed the milk had been stolen from a tanker carrying it from a chilling centre to the Madhavaram dairy near Chennai. Milk in the tanker was adulterated to compensate for the theft.
Soon after the scam surfaced, Aavin terminated the services of the employees concerned and initiated proceedings against the husband and wife.
The petitioner assailed cancellation of contracts, contending that action had been initiated on the basis of confessions by unconnected third parties and punishment ought to have been only disengagement of the vehicle.
All contracts relating to hundreds of lorries cannot be terminated on the basis of charge of theft and adulteration by third parties totally unconnected with her in respect of one vehicle, she said.
Rejecting the submissions, Justice Ramasubramanian faulted the Aavin management for having soft-pedalled the contractor's mistakes on at least 20 occasions from 2011. He noted their contract had been renewed on November 21, 2013, contrary to public interest.
He rejected the contention that action had been taken on the basis of one isolated incident and said it could not be said the tanker found carrying adulterated milk alone ought to have been disengaged by Aavin.
The judge also pointed out that the petitioner had failed to make use of the opportunity to explain her stand by refusing to accept registered mails sent by Aavin."The present action appears to be a culmination of several events of the past," he said.
