Where a public authority takes action against a person under a contract, but such action is not in accordance with the terms of the contract and is based on a perverse report, and the person is not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, such action can be challenged through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

This Rule is directed against the order of termination of petitioner’s M.R. Dealership passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jalpaiguri, dated 15th September, 1975. On November 13, 1972 the petitioner, against the order of suspension of his dealership, moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained a Rule, being C.R. 7677(W) of 1972 and also obtained an ad-interim order of injunction against the Sub-divisional Controller, Food & Supplies, Jalpaiguri from settling the shop with any person or authority for a period of five weeks after the long vacation with liberty to apply for extension and/or further interim order with notice to the other side before the appropriate Bench. Pursuant to the liberty given to the petitioner, an application for the extension of the interim order with notice to the respondents was moved before Mr. Justice P. K. Banerjee. The learned Judge by his order dated 22nd December, 1972 extended the interim order in terms of prayer till the disposal of the said application. The application was adjourned till four weeks after Christmas vacation. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application for contempt on the ground of alleged non-compliance of the orders passed by Mr. Justice Banerjee. A Rule for contempt upon Sub-divisional Controller Food & Supplies, Jalpaiguri was issued. Subsequently the contempt Rule was discharged. The main Rule was ultimately withdrawn by the petitioner on the verbal assurance given to him by the Sub-divisional Controller Food & Supplies, Jalpaiguri that the said Sub-divisional Controller would withdraw the suspension order if the case pending in court be withdrawn by the petitioner. On 18th Of May, 1975 the learned Advocate for the petitioner wrote a letter to the Sub-divisional Controller, Food & Supplies, Jalpaiguri that on an oral prayer made to the Hon'ble Court the application under Art. 226 of the Constitution was withdrawn by the petitioner, Mahabir Prasad Bansal. The purported order of suspension was therefore no longer subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court and the entire matter was left open for the authorities for proper consideration. The allegations centering round the purported order of suspension were wholly nonest and the authority concerned would be pleased to consider the entire matter in its correct perspective. Thereafter, on 6th of June, 1975 the petitioner made representation to the Sub-divisional Controller, Food & Supplies, Jalpaiguri for withdrawal of the said suspension order on the aforesaid assurance. The petitioner being aggrieved by the refusal of the Respondents in withdrawing the order of suspension, moved the present application under Art. 226 of the Constitution and obtained the present Rule. Subsequently the petition has been amended and the order of termination of his dealership has been challenged.

2. On 7th of July, 1970 the petitioner made an application for M.R. Dealership at Binnaguri within Dhupguri Police Station in the district of Jalpaiguri. On 3rd August, 1970 the Sub-divisional Controller, Food & Supplies, Jalpaiguri wrote a letter to the petitioner informing him about his appointment as a M.R. dealer. In the said letter the petitioner was further informed that for the purpose of his appointment, he was required to obtain a licence under the West Bengal Kerosene Oil Control Order, 1965 and a licence under the West Bengal Foodgrains (Licencing & Control) Order, 1967. He was also required to execute an agreement in the prescribed Model Form and to furnish security deposit of Rs. 250/- by 5th of September, 1970. The petitioner complied with the terms of the said letter. An agreement was executed on the 1st of September, 1970 between the Governor of the State of West Bengal and the petitioner. The relevant clauses of the agreement are set out hereunder. Clause-17: The District Magistrate or the Controller with the approval of District Magistrate without assigning any reason and without prejudice to the rights and r