The State is not relieved from all public law duties by reason only of the existence of a contract between the State or other public authority and the affected party.

( 1 ) IN this, writ petition, the writ petitioner challenges a notice of termination of a licence in regard to a flat in a residential area at Haldia. 1he notice of termination is dated 15. 1. 87 and is annexure 'd' to the writ petition. The writ petitioner, at all material times, was licensed by the respondent authorities to engage themselves as clearing agents, and thus enter into, for their purposes, the protected port area of both Calcutta and Haldia.

( 2 ) THE flat was taken under an agreement of 1979 - ostensibly under a licence, at a licence fee of Rs. 1,200/-, for three months, revocable on seven days' notice. Though the terms were such, the writ petitioner-licensee has continued in possession of the flat for the past 13 years, paying the agreed fees.

( 3 ) THE case of the respondent Port Trust is that, the writ petitioner was a mere licensee in the flat. But the writ petitioner states that even according to a receipt dated as late as 25. 6. 87, moneys in respect of the flat were accepted as rental. Be that as it may, it is on record that the Port Authorities once attempted to terminate the occupational agreement of the writ petitioner in 1982. By a letter dated 7th July 1982, the writ petitioner was asked to vacate within two months of receipt of the letter. It was said that the respondent-authority needed the flat for accommodation additionally needed for the increased number of its employees. A follow up letter of 29. 11. 82 asked the writ petitioner to remove all effects by 31st January 1983.

( 4 ) THESE two notices were admittedly given a go-bye; by the aforesaid rental receipt of 1987, moneys were accepted for the period upto February 1987. .

( 5 ) AFTER the 1982 notices, the notice of 15th. January, 1987 was served. The gap of several years is unexplained - both in the correspondence and in the Opposition filed on behalf of the respondent authorities. After the notice of 15. 1. 87, the Estate Manager served a Notice on 11. 4. 88 asking the writ petitioner to show cause under section 4 (1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971. The said show cause notice is also under challenge.

( 6 ) MR. P. K. Roy appearing for the writ petitioner, has said that the authority under the aforesaid Act would have jurisdiction, like an ordinary Court of Law, to pronounce upon the appropriateness of the termination notice dated 15th January, 1987. Mr. Majumdar appearing for the respondents, has said that such power would be available to the deciding authority under section 8 of the said Act and that an appeal mould lie therefrom under section 9 to the District Judge.

( 7 ) MR. Majumdar has relied in this regard upon the case of Ashoka Marketing reported in AIR 1991 SC 855 and has submitted on the basis thereof that the Act has now been authoritatively pronounced as a permissible Constitutional procedure enabling quick summary eviction of unauthorised occupants by the concerned authorities. There can be no dispute with such submission of Mr. Majumdar.

( 8 ) MR. Roy has submitted that though the Act is a self-contained Act and the authorities under sections 8 and 9 could pronounce upon ordinary legal rights and liabilities, yet those authorities would be unable to make any pronouncement upon any Constitutiona1 issues dating either to the fundamental rights or relating to such matters as could be invoked only under. The Writ Jurisdiction of the High, Court. Mr. Roy has said that the termination, notice of 15th January, 1987 is unconstitutional and is in breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Even though the writ petitioner on record is only a Private Limited Company, no useful purpose would be served by directing directors and shareholders to be brought on record merely for the purpose of having names of citizens on record for the purpose of enforcement of their fundamental rights. It is an appropriate case where the Corporate veil should be pierced and the shareholders of