P. JYOTHIMANI, J.

1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 112. 2007 passed in W.P.No.28758 of 2007, dismissing the same.

2. The license to run a petroleum outlet at Alangudi Road, Pudukkottai was granted to one Mrs. Sumathi for a period of one year from 2002-2003 and it was subsequently renewed. It appears that she was not able to continue to run the outlet and therefore, she proposed to sell the land, which was purchased by the appellants, who are mother and son respectively.

3. It is the case of the appellants that, after the purchase, they have applied to the second respondent/ Corporation and based on an interview, a contract was entered into between the Corporation and the appellants, originally, for one year 2004-2005, which was renewed for the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 and was subsequently renewed for a period of six months, valid up to 30.9.2007. During the subsistence of the contract, the second respondent has issued a notice on 17. 2007, terminating the contract with effect from 8. 2007. It was aggrieved over the said order of termination of the contract, the appellants have filed the writ petition.

4. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellants that (i) what was granted to the appellants was not a license, but a permission, and when the same was renewed, the termination of contract, before the expiry of renewed period without any reason or fault on the appellants, would amount to denial of principles of natural justice; and (ii) there has not been equal bargaining power between the parties and therefore, the termination of license was arbitrary, the learned Single Judge, by relying upon one of the clauses of the agreement, namely Clause 48, which provides for such termination of contract even before the expiry of the period without assigning any reason, has, ultimately, dismissed the writ petition holding that there is no legitimate expectation and that there is no vested right conferred on the appellants to continue the permission or license.

5. The admitted fact remains that the land to an extent of 7185 sq.ft. belonged to one Mrs. Sumathi, to whom the second respondent has granted license to run a petroleum outlet in the year 2003. It was the case of the appellants in the writ petition that in the year 2004, the first appellant has applied for grant of dealership for petroleum retail outlet in favour of the second appellant at Annavasal Road, owned by her. It is their case that, when such application was pending, the first respondent has invited the second appellant for an interview for award of license to run petroleum outlet. It is the case of the appellants that the first respondent has advised that the above said Mrs. Sumathi is running a unit, which has become sick and not viable due to improper management, and the second appellant can purchase the land from her and it was based on the said promise, it was stated that the second appellant has purchased the above said land from Mrs. Sumathi.

6. It is also stated that, in the meantime, the first respondent has also advised the appellants to take the place on contract basis. Thereafter, the contract was stated to have been awarded to the second appellant by letter dated 3. 2004, effective from 33. 2004 for one year. It was renewed from 4. 2004 to 33. 2006 and it was thereafter renewed for a further period of one year 4. 2006 to 33. 2007, which was subsequently renewed for six months, valid up to 30.9.2007. As stated above, before the expiry of the period, a notice of termination was issued on 17. 2007, terminating the contract with effect from 8. 2007.

7. A reference to the order passed by the second respondent dated 3. 2004 addressed to the second appellant shows that the second appellant has been selected as Maintenance and Handling Contractor for operation of its COCO at Pudukkottai. Therefore, it was not a license or dealership granted to the second appellant by the second respondent, b