RAM BACHAN SRIVASTAVA Vs. NATIONAL SAVING EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari or mandamus for quashing the order contained in Annexure '2' to this application.

(2.) On the 16th of March, 1964, an agreement was arrived at between the President of India and the petitioner under the National Savings Scheme whereby the petitioner was appointed an Agent for transacting business of National Savings Certificates and Postal Time Deposits, The agreement has been annexed to this application as Annexure '3'. It appears that the petitioner acted as Agent and received commendations as well but his agency was terminated by the National Savings Executive Officer, Bhojpur and Sasaram by letter dated the 8th of December, 1974. This letter has been annexed and marked as Annexure '2' to this application. This annexure forms the central point of the grievance of the petitioner. This letter contains recital that the agency of the petitioner was being terminated in terms of Clause 9-A of the Agreement arrived at between the parties which is Annexure '3' to this application. The contract of Agency executed on the 16th of March, 1964 was for three years and had been renewed from time to time. It was renewed for the last time on the 15th of March. 1973, and would have been in force till the 14 of March, 1976 had its life not been cut short by Annexure '2' which is D/- the 8th of December, 1974 and which is alleged to have been served on the petitioner on the 12th of December, 1974. The grievance of the petitioner is that the National Savings Executive Officer has acted arbitrarily in determining the agreement contained in Annexure '3'.

(3.) In elucidation of his grievance learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Clause 9-A in terms of which the agreement has been terminated postulated that the order terminating the Agency should have contained reasons for the termination of the contract. That not having been done, learned counsel for the petitioner contended, that the act of the Authorities was arbitrary and liable to be quashed by this Court. In all fairness to learned counsel for the petitioner, it must be stated that he did not contend that he was entitled to any notice to show cause why the Agency be not terminated but he contended that the order of termination should have contained the reasons for termination of the contract.