Judgment Navaniti Pd.Singh, J. 1. The Petitioner is an organization which innovated setting up of public utility like public toilets and maintaining them. 2. Considering their works, the State Government decided to direct various local bodies to give the work of construction and maintenance of public toilet to the Petitioners organization on basis of an agreement on long term basis. Accordingly, after negotiation with various municipalities in Bihar, the Petitioner took up the work of repairing of old toilets constructing new toilets with grant from the Municipality and then for maintaining them on agreed terms. For this they employed a large number of persons. Once such arrangement, which was being managed by the Petitioner being entrusted by the Purnea Municipality was in Purnea town. What has brought the Petitioner to this Court is that without notice, without initiating any proceeding and without granting any opportunity to the Petitioner to defend the arrangement with the Petitioner was cancelled by the Municipal Commissioner in their meeting dated, 12th September, 2005 and pursuant thereto Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were informed by letter dated, 14th September, 2005 (Annexure 5) that the agreement with the Petitioner had been cancelled and now the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are being put in that possession on payment of Rs. 11,000 per year to the municipal Corporation. 3. Notice of these proceedings were issued to the Purnea Municipality and validly served on it but they choose not to appear. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, who are now settlee were noticed and they have appeared and filed their counter-affidavits. 4. Heard the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 5. From the facts, as pleaded, it is not in dispute that the Petitioner had an arrangement for maintaining public utility, as aforesaid, for the Purnea Municipality. It is not in dispute that they pursuant to the said arrangement were in possession of various public utility. It is also not in dispute that at no point of time any notice was issued to the Petitioner in regard to the action proposed to be taken and seeking explanation in that regard. In other words, there was no proceeding for cancellation of the subsidy arrangement, much less, on any specific ground, yet, the Municipal Commissioner in their meeting dated, 12th September, 2005 (Annexure -C to the counter-affidavit of Respondent Nos. In other words, there was no proceeding for cancellation of the subsidy arrangement, much less, on any specific ground, yet, the Municipal Commissioner in their meeting dated, 12th September, 2005 (Annexure -C to the counter-affidavit of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7) suddenly took a decision to cancel the Petitioners agreement and settled the same with Respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Even in this resolution nothing is noted about the deliberation of show cause or explanation. It is pursuant to that the settlement in favour of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 is done by letter dated, 14th September, 2005 (Annexure 5). 6. Petitioner submits that all was well for quite sometime but then several employees at Purnea have to be dismissed. It is then some employees, who immediately on being dismissed formed a group of their own and persuaded the Municipal Corporation to cancel the Petitioners settlement and give to them. This is a specific averment in para 20 of the Writ Petition.The concerned Respondents being Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have denied the said averments of dismissal of the employees in para 10 of the counter-affidavit. They have stated that they were transferred by the Petitioner from Purnea to Delhi, which they did not accept and as such left the organization. It is in the same very month, for the first time, they approached the Municipality for cancelling the settlement of the Petitioner and making settlement. with them. It is also admitted as evident from Annexure B to the counter-affidavit. From these facts, it is clear that Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are nothing but disgruntle group of workers who have managed to upset Petitioners settlement and obtained settlement for themselves but this, iq my view, cannot be a ground for this Court to interfere. It is not in dispute any more that no notice was issued, in regard to cancellation by the Municipality, to the Petitioner. The law in regard to compliance of principle of natural justice and its requirement is well discussed and laid down in the celebrated Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S.L Kapoor V/s. Jagmohan, since reported in AIR 1981 SC 136 . Their Lordships have referred to various legal concepts thereof including requirement of issuing specific unambiguous notice of the allegation and the consequential proposed action to be taken to be a pre condition to take any action in the matter. Their Lordships have referred to various legal concepts thereof including requirement of issuing specific unambiguous notice of the allegation and the consequential proposed action to be taken to be a pre condition to take any action in the matter. Their Lordships have clearly held that if allegations are made and replied, those allegations without any further notice of contemplated action to be taken cannot form the basis of the action impugned, for a person must have notice of the allegation in view of the proposed action and not dehors them. In my view, the said decision would apply in the present case. The action of the Purnea Municipality, who was noticed and has chosen not to defend cannot thus, be upheld by this Court, for the actions are in gross violation of all basic principle of natural: justice. The action being violated of principle of natural justice cannot be permitted to be carried out or remained in force. The action of Respondent-Corporation in deciding to cancel the settlement with Petitioner is thus, void being violative of principle of natural justice and is declared so and consequently the resolution dated, 12th September, 2005 of the Respondent- Corporation cannot be sustained and is quashed as such. 7. The Respondents raised a plea of maintainability of the Writ Petition, which must be noted. They submitted that the Petitioner had alternative remedy by way of arbitration under the agreement or other remedy for contractual violation and as such the Writ Petition is not maintainable. This is to be noted only for the purpose of rejection, for it is well settled by catena of Judgments that violation of principle of natural justice is an exception to the plea of alternative remedy where an Authority has acted in violation of principle of natural justice, then the person aggrieved by such action is not required to avail any alternative remedy and invoke writ of certiorari of this Court. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the Writ Petition is allowed and the action of the Respondent cancelling the Petitioners agreement is quashed but in the tacts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.