The principles of natural justice apply in contractual matters with civil consequences, allowing for judicial review of decisions that violate these principles.

JUDGMENT :

Sujoy Paul, A.C.J.

With the consent, finally heard Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for respondent No.1; Sri M. Ajay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, for respondent No.4.

2. This intra-Court appeal takes exception to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18531 of 2024, dated 23.12.2024.

3. The brief facts narrated by the parties are that on 13.05.2019, respondent No.1/writ petitioner was given a contract/licence to run a stall at Mahabubnagar Bus Station to sell Vijaya Dairy products. The said allotment was extended from time to time.

4. Respondent No.2 allegedly found that respondent No.1/writ petitioner was selling non-Vijaya Dairy products at the stall. Thus, vide letter dated 18.06.2024, the allotment of stall was cancelled.

5. The case of the present appellant is that after cancellation of the allotment of respondent No.1/writ petitioner, respondent Nos.2 and 3 gave the contract to the appellant on 18.06.2024 to operate the stall for selling Vijaya Dairy products at Mahabubnagar Bus Station for a period of six months.

6. Respondent No.1/writ petitioner, feeling aggrieved with the cancellation order dated 18.06.2024, filed the instant writ petition mainly on the ground that cancellation of contract/licence entails civil consequences and therefore, the impugned order dated 18.06.2024 is liable to be interfered with.

7. The learned Single Judge, after considering various judgments of the Supreme Court, came to hold that since the impugned order dated 18.06.2024 is admittedly passed without following the principles of natural justice and the said principles were not expressly or impliedly excluded, the said principles are indeed applicable. In the absence of following the said principles, the impugned order in the writ petition was set aside.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant got herself impleaded in the writ proceedings and along with the application for vacate stay, filed a three-Judge Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar, [(1977) 3 SCC 457]. In view of this judgment, the principles of natural justice are inapplicable in contractual matters. Thus, although it is admitted that the contractual matters are not beyond the scope of judicial review, non-following the principles of natural justice cannot be a reason for interference. The said judgment cited by the appellant has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. On more than one occasion, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment in the case of M/s. Radhakrishna Agarwal (supra) has not been considered and distinguished at any later point of time by the Supreme Court.

9. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner submits that what has been granted to respondent No.1/writ petitioner was a licence, which is evident from ‘Deed of Licence’ (Ex. P-4). The judgment cited by the appellant relates to contractual matters and therefore, no fault can be found in the order of the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that the appellant had no locus standi to participate before the Writ Court because the allotment in her favour was granted after cancellation of allotment of respondent No.1/writ petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner further stated that the contract for respondent No.1/writ petitioner was extended up to August, 2025.

10. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that Clause 27 of the Deed of Licence shows that it is in fact a ‘contract’ and if the conditions are breached, the same was liable to be cancelled.

11. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above.

12. We have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

Findings:-

13. The case of the present appellant is solely based on the judgment of the