Manmohan Sarin ( 1 ) PETITIONER was allotted an ISD/std/pco booth by the MTNL under the Scheme of Employment for the Unemployed Youth. Respondent No. 1-National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT) provided space for the installation of ISD/std/pco booth. A formal franchise agreement by the petitioner was entered into with respondent No. 2/mtnl. The petitioner, thus, commenced operating the ISD/std/pco booth at the premises of respondent No. 1/nift. The petitioner has come to this Court, since respondent No. 1 has sealed the ISD/std/pco booth. ( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shali, has assailed this action on the part of respondent No. 1 as being in violation of principles of natural justice and being totally arbitrary and high-handed. ( 3 ) COUNTER affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 1, wherein it is averred that respondent No. 1/nift being a reputed co-educational Institute in the field of fashion technology, was facing considerable difficulties on account of misbehaviour of the petitioner s employee, who was manning the ISD/std/ PCO booth. Respondentno. 1 has produced on record complaint dated 4. 4. 2000, written by the student warden to the Registrar, complaining that the employee of the petitioner had been charging more and was abusive. The said intimation goes to the extent that he even once bite one of the students. There is another complaint by one of the students dated 28. 8. 2000, where there is an allegation of misbehaviour and the employee being quarrelsome and cribbing on giving change. Significantly, there is also a signed note by the said employee, apologising for the incident of 28. 8. 2000 and assuring that he would not repeat such mistake and he was ashamed of his conduct. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel then attempted to urge that since the franchise agreement with respondent No. 1 /nift was for a period of five years, the permission by the respondent also had to co-terminus with me same and could not be terminated earlier. I am unable to accept this submission. "no Objection" given by respondent No. 1 was in the nature of permissive user i. e; a licence, which has been terminated. In the instant case, even though a formal notice of termination, following the complaint may not have been given. I am unable to accept this submission. "no Objection" given by respondent No. 1 was in the nature of permissive user i. e; a licence, which has been terminated. In the instant case, even though a formal notice of termination, following the complaint may not have been given. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that petitioner was duly informed of these complaints and aberrations on the part of the employee but failed to take corrective action from April to August, 2000. The petitioner does not have any legally enforceable right for which relief can be sought in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Even otherwise, considering the nature of allegations, which have been made against the petitioner s employee, even though now the petitioner seeks clemency, in my view, it is not a fit case where this Court ought to interfere in the execise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.