ORDER In the present writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the impugned termination of M. R. Dealer Agreement dated February 3, 1977, passed by the Sub-divisional Controller, Food & Supply, Jalpaiguri, which was entered into between the Government of West Bengal and the petitioner, by invoking the provisions of Clause 12 of the Agreement. 2. It would be convenient for me to set out Clauses 12 and 13 of the said Agreement hereinbelow for understanding its true purport: "12 The District Magistrate or the Controller with the approved of the District Magistrate, without assigning reason and without prejudice to the rights and remedies of the Government against the Distributor for any breach or contravention of the provisions of this agreement may suspend supply of foodstuffs to the Distributor forthwith and terminate this Agreement if in the opinion of the Controller, the Distributor has committed any branch of the terms and conditions of the Agreement or has failed to observe or carry out any directions given to the Distributor according to the provisions of this Agreement. The decision of the Controller in that behalf, shall be final. 13. Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, the District Magistrate or the Controller, as the case may be, shall at any time be at liberty in his uncontrolled discretion and without assigning any reason to terminate this agreement for and on behalf of the Governor on giving one months notice in writing of his intention so to terminate this agreement and the Distributor shall have no claim for losses or damages on that account against the Government and similarly the Distributor shall be at liberty to terminate this agreement after giving similar notice as aforesaid." 3. Although initially no interim order was granted on March 7, 1977, by Amiya Kumar Mukherjee J (As His Lordship then was), but subsequently on April 19, 1977, His Lordship granted the interim order of injunction and restrained the respondents from giving any effect to the impugned order, being Annexure 'B' to the writ petition until further orders, with liberty to the respondents to apply for variation and vacation of the interim ardor upon notice to the petitioner. 4. At this stage, I may refer to the impugned order of termination dated February 3, 1977 passed by the Sub. 4. At this stage, I may refer to the impugned order of termination dated February 3, 1977 passed by the Sub. Divisional Controller, Food & Supply, Jalpaiguri, the text whereof is set out hereinbelow: "In terms of Clause 12 of the agreement had between you and the Governor of West Bengal, I Sri Joydev Biswas Sub-Divisional Controller food and Supplies Jalpaiguri do hereby terminate the agreement from the date of issue of this letter. No claim for case or damage against Government by you will be entertained on this account" 5. Mr. Kashi Kanta Maitrs, learned Advocate, appearing in support of the writ petition, at the hearing submitted that before termination of the agreement no notice and/or hearing was given to the petitioner to show cause. 6. He further submitted that the impugned order of termination of M. R. Dealership having the actual effect of civil consequences and/or civil consequences and although Clause 12 of the Agreement did not provide for giving any opportunity to the M. R. Distributor or Dealer before issuance of such order of termination but because of nature of exercise of powers, under the said clause, which had civil and evil consequences and as such notice should have been given to the petitioner for the ends of justice. 8. In paragraph 8 of the said affidavit, it was also stated that the original modified rationed distributorship was granted to Dipak Kumar Saha, namely (the present petitioner herein) and an agreement was executed in between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 on behalf of the Governor of West Bengal for granting M.R. Distributorship but actually the M.R. Shop was being run by one Jagadish Prosad Agarwalla and as no agreement was executed by Jagadish Prasad Agarwalla, so the agreement became ab inito void and as such, giving opportunity to show cause and give reasons did not arise in the facts of the case at all. 9. Moreover, the petitioner was found guilty of the provisions of S. 1 of the Essential Commodities Act, J 955 and provisions of West Bengal Rice and Paddy (License & Control) Order, 1967 which were very serious in nature. 10. Mr. 9. Moreover, the petitioner was found guilty of the provisions of S. 1 of the Essential Commodities Act, J 955 and provisions of West Bengal Rice and Paddy (License & Control) Order, 1967 which were very serious in nature. 10. Mr. Kashi Kanta Maitra referred to a recent decision of this Court reported in 1984 (1) LJ 280 (Abdul Azim v. State of West Bengal) wherein in a case of cancellation of agreement for non compliance of Clause 17 of the said Agreement, this Court interfering with the order of cancellation held that the order of cancellation suffers form serious infirmities, inasmuch as, the authority did not disclose the reasons for which the explanation offered by the writ petitioner could not be accepted. 11. In the case before us, Mr. Maitra submitted, no explanation was sought for, no show cause notice was given and, as such, the present case stands on a better footing and this Court is entitled to interfere. More so, because of the specific stand taken in the affidavit, particularly in paragraph 8 of the said affidavit as referred to hereinabove. 12. Mr. Maitra further submitted that prior to issuance of the impugned order of termination no charge particularly, the charge of running benami business in the name of Dipak Kumar Saha by Jagadish Prasad Agarwalla had been alleged thereby the writ petitioner was preented from giving any reply to the said charge and as such, the impugned order suffers from the violation of the principles of natural justice. 13. In paragraph 14 of the said affidavit, also, it was stated that termination of distributorship has been passed as a penal measure, and as such, Clause 13 of the Agreement is not attracted and the writ petitioner’s contention regarding interpretation of the provisions of Clauses 12 and 13 as stated in paragraph 12 of the writ petition was totally misconceived. 14. Mr. Amar Nath Dhole, learned Advocate, appearing for the Respondents submits that no writ lies for termination of Agreement, which is emanating from an Agreement not even created by the under any statute and the petitioner could have the remedy else where and he has cited authorities of this Court. 15. Mr. 14. Mr. Amar Nath Dhole, learned Advocate, appearing for the Respondents submits that no writ lies for termination of Agreement, which is emanating from an Agreement not even created by the under any statute and the petitioner could have the remedy else where and he has cited authorities of this Court. 15. Mr. Dhole further submitted, referring to paragraph 8 of the affidavit-in- opposition, that as the agreement with the petitioner became void ab initio, the question of giving opportunity to show cause with reasons did not arise in the facts of the present case. 16. Mr. Kashi Kanta Maitra in reply to such objection submitted that the position stated by Mr. Dhole is not correct as there was a prior appointment of the petitioner as a Distributor and thereafter the petitioner was directed to sign the agreement. The Appointment of Distributorship being purely administrative in nature even for termination of such appointment of distributorship, compliance with the principles of natural justice should be done. 17. He refers to the decision reported in Mahabir Prasad Bansal v. State of West Bengal 1976 (2) CLJ page 79 where this view has been endorsed though not directly but incidentally in the matter of suspension of supply of commodity when there was subsistence of an agreement. 18. I am, however, not in a position to accept the contention of Mr. Dhole because of the following reasons : 19. The impugned order of termination invoking Clause 12 of the agreement in fact had the civil consequences and as such, in view of the specific case made out in the affidavit, it was incumbent upon the respondents to give show cause notice to the writ petitioner before issuance of such final order of termination, Following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. AIR 1970 SC 1302 and also the decisions of this Court cited above, the impugned order of termination cannot be sustained and as such the said impugned order is set aside. 20. 20. Before parting, it was submitted that by virtue of the interim order which was granted at a later stage on April 19, 1977, the respondents were restrained from giving any further effect to the impugned order of termination being Annexure ‘B’ to this petition and as such by reason of the interim order the impugn ed order of termination has not been given effect to No one appears at the hearing to dispute this contention of the writ petitioner. The Rule is made absolute. Let a writ of Certiorati issue quashing the order of termination of the Agreement dated February 3, 1977 being Annexure ‘B’ to the writ petition. Let a consequential writ of Mandamus issue forbearing the respondents from giving any further effect to the impugned order of termination of the Agreement dated February 3, 1977 being Annexure ‘B’ to the writ petition. There will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.