(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH) 1. RULE. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this Special Civil Application is taken up for final hearing today.
2. We have heard Learned counsel Mr M.K. Shah for the petitioner and learned counsel Ms. P.J. Davawala for the respondent. Learned counsel Mr M.K. Shah has drawn our attention to the document dated 1.5.2012 which is the impugned order issued by the respondent by which the respondent has cancelled the Agro Business Centre allotted to the petitioner. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not received any show cause notice nor any opportunity of being heard had been provided prior to the cancellation of the allotment of the Agro Business Centre at Naswadi, Taluka Naswadi, District Vadodara. It is not in dispute that clause 16 of the contract/agreement dated 27.11.2011 at Annexure 'B' at page No.16 states that the respondent Corporation shall terminate the contract and licence without any notice in case of breach of circumstances narrated therein. According to the learned counsel, this clause No.16 of Annexure 'B' itself is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia and Anr. vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and ors. (AIR 2003 SC 2120) and submitted that the ratio laid down in the said decision has been violated by non-issuance of any show cause notice prior to cancellation of allotment of Agro Business Centre. He, therefore, submitted that the petition be allowed and direction be issued to quashing the cancellation letter dated 1.5.2012 being contrary to the principles of natural justice.
3. Learned counsel Ms. P.J. Davawala for the respondent Corporation submitted that after the allotment of the said centre and after fulfilling the required conditions after entering into the agreement on 30.11.2011, till 20.4.2012 the petitioner did not do anything to start the centre and when the order cancelling the centre was passed, the petitioner rushed to this Court, in stead of availing alternative remedy related to arbitration as per clause 17 of Annexure 'B'. She submitted that the order passed by the corporation is just, legal and proper and it does not require any interference by this Court.
4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is an ex-
employee of the respondent-Gujarat Agro Industries Corporation Ltd.(for short, “the Corporation”). Referring to clause 19 of the contract/agreement it appears that as per the said contract/agreement at Annexure 'B', the petitioner was required to achieve target but he had not opened the Centre at all and so the question of achieving the target did not arise. It is the fact that the petitioner has not purchased the required material from the respondent-Corporation for selling at the Centre and therefore, the business which the Corporation would have secured if the Centre had started by the petitioner, was not secured and the petitioner had not purchased material from the corporation as per clause No.19. On this aspect, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had 'cash facility account scheme' with the respondent and the petitioner has to order goods via telephone and deposit the amount for the said purchase and then he will receive the goods. On a specific query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner to show the relevant clause related to 'cash facility account scheme', he could not convince us by laying his hands on the relevant clause of the agreement related to the said 'cash facility account scheme'. In our considered view, the petitioner, being well aware of the clause No. 16, has entered into the agreement and now he cannot agitate the point/issue that clause 16 itself is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21. In our view, if at all it is violative as submitted by the petitioner, then also the petitioner has to suffer, more particularly when the petitioner himself being an ex-employee of the respondent-Corporation is expected to know the details of the terms and conditions of the contract and with the knowledge he had entered into the agreement at Annexure 'B'. It is also important to note that as per clause 17 of the agreement at Annexure 'B', there is a provision of appointment of Arbitrator in case of any difference of opinion arises with the Corporation in complying with the conditions of the agreement. The petitioner has not availed that remedy and approached this court and so also the petition deserves to be dismissed.
4.1. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, suppose the petitioner has placed order in April, 2012 via telephone and he was informed by the respondent- Corporation that he shall have to deposit Rupees Two lakh, appears to be an assertion on the part of the petitioner without any base and we find no substance and merit in the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. From the above discussion and considering the conduct of the petitioner, in our considered view, though no show cause notice is not issued prior to cancellation of the agreement at Annexure 'B', principles of natural justice is not violated because it is well settled legal position that principles of natural justice are not embodied rules and they cannot be imprisoned with the straitjacket or a rigid formula. Thus in our view, the ratio laid down in Harbanslal Sahnia and Anr.'s case (supra) is not applicable to the case on hand.
6. It has been held by the Apex Court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SC 517 that power of judicial review will not be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest or to decide contractual disputes. A contract is a commercial transaction and principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance.
7. In view of the aforesaid, there appears no substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[V.M. SAHAI, J.]
[G. B. SHAH, J.]
msp