AKHILESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) BEFORE I deal with the merits of the matter, I would like to dispose of the amendment application filed by the petitioner on 30.07.1999, seeking amendment for the pleadings. He seeks permission to challenge the validity of the order contained in Memo No. 649, dated 22.06.1999 (Annexure - 12), whereby the petitioner 'sappointment as collecting agent has been terminated, thereby cutting short the contract which was to expire on 31.03.2000. Having heard learned counsel for the parties on this issue, I allow this application. All the annexures of this interlocutory application including Annexure -12 will form part of the writ petition with the liberty to impugn their validity.

(3.) WHILE assailing the validity of the impugned action, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned action is arbitrary and has been caused on account of reversal of policy on the part of the State Government regarding the mode and manner of collection of market fee. The respondent authorities could have waited till 31.03.2000, which would have prevented cutting short the agreement entered into between the parties (Annexure -12). He further submits that the impugned order is also in violation of the principles of natural justice.