The central legal point established is that contractual terminations must adhere to the principles of natural justice, and violations of these principles render the termination invalid.

VIJENDER JAIN, ACJ.

( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the learned Single judge, the appellant has filed the present appeal. Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that it is well settled that in contractual sphere where the action was taken in accordance with provisions of the mutually agreed stipulations, the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not interdict it with the action. It was contented before us that the learned Single Judge has not followed the dictum laid by the Supreme Court in M/s. Radhakrishnaagarwalv. State of Bihar, AIR 1977 sc 1496. It was also contended that in terms of Stockist Agreement between the parties and in terms of Clause 1. 3 of the said agreement three months notice in writing was given to the respondent and the clause itself has inbuilt mechanism of principles of natural justice. Clause 1. 3 of the Agreement is referred below:"termination of Agreement 1. 3 The agreement can be terminated by either party without assigning any reason and without liability to pay any compensation upon giving the other party three months notice in writing and upon expiry of the said notice the agreement shall stand automatically terminated and expire, but without prejudice to the rights of either party against the other in respect of any matter or thing or acts or omissions antecedent to such termination. "

( 2 ) OUR attention has also been drawn to the notice which is at Page 107 of the paper book dated 19th May, 2003 sent to the respondent pursuant to Clause 1. 3 of the Agreement. Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has also placed reliance on Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. M/s. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums, IV (2003) SLT 553=jt 2003 (6) SC 1 to support his argument that due to existence of arbitration clause in the Stockistship agreement this Court should not interfere by exercising its jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Assailing the findings of the learned Single judge, learned Counsel for the appellant has contented that the learned Single judge failed to notice that under the Lube Distributorship Agreement it was incumbent upon the appellant to give a show cause notice before terminating the distributorship Agreement and, therefore, the same analogy of serving a show cause notice could not have been imported in the Stockistship Agreement where no such clause of serving a prior show-cause notice before terminating the distributorship Agreement exists. Mr Sharma also submitted that the appellant had duly complied with the said clause existing in Lube Distributorship Agreement before terminating the said agreement and since no such clause existed in the Stockist agreement, therefore, no prior show-cause notice was required to be served upon the respondent before terminating the Distributorship Agreement.

( 3 ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that if there is a manifest injustice orthe principles of natural justice has been violated, the Writ Court is not without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Harbans Lal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. and Ors. , I (2003) SLT 153=2003- (2)-SCC 107 and Bharat Filling Station v. Indian Oil Corporation, 104 (2003) DLT 601=2003 (3) AD (Del.) 394, wherein the Supreme Court held:"23. Thus the Supreme Court held in the aforesaid cases that there may be circumstances where immediate action is required and in such cases pre-decisional natural justice may not be contemplated and purpose can be served by giving post-decisional hearing. However, going by the facts and circumstances it cannot be said that the alleged offence was so grave that it was necessary for the respondent No. 2 to dispense with the provisions of requirement of observance of show-cause notice before taking drastic action of terminating the dealership agency. Even if the respondent No. 2