ORDER The petitioner-society is said to have established a study centre at Parbhani in the year 1999 for the purpose of preparing the candidates to appear for the examinations conducted by Moulana Azad National Urdu University. The University entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in that regard initially in the year 1999 and was being renewed from year to year until 2005-2006. It appears that on the eve of the academic year 2006-2007, a letter, dated 14.9.2006 was issued by the Regional Director of the University, the 2nd respondent herein seeking the consent of the petitioner-society for managing the study centre for the academic year 2006-2007. The petitioner-society submitted its consent letter and sought for executing the MoU. The University did not take further steps in the matter. However, it issued a letter, dated 20.2.2007 to the petitioner-society conveying its decision to change the place of study centre at Kamel Urdu High School and Junior College at Parbhani. The petitioner-society has assailed the said letter in this writ petition. 2. Sri Mirza Safiulla Baig, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the action of the University in changing the study centre and thereby taking away the rights of the petitioner-society is not legal and valid. The Counsel submits that the petitioner was running the study centre after duly entering into an understanding with the University year to year and has a vested right for renewal for the year 2006-2007 and such a right cannot be defeated without notice. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned letter, which has been sent during the middle of the academic year, is violative of principles of natural justice. 3. Counter-affidavit is filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is stated that the petitioner was authorised to run the study centre under the Memorandum of Understanding between the parties on yearly basis from the academic year 1999-2000 till 2005-2006. During the said period, the petitioner was found to be indulging in questionable practices and encouraging mass copying. The petitioner also did not provide suitable accommodation as per the norms. Hence, it was thought fit not to continue the study centre from the academic year 2006-2007. The University thus did not renew the MoU with the petitioner from the said academic year, though the petitioner had given his consent for renewal. The petitioner also did not provide suitable accommodation as per the norms. Hence, it was thought fit not to continue the study centre from the academic year 2006-2007. The University thus did not renew the MoU with the petitioner from the said academic year, though the petitioner had given his consent for renewal. It is further stated that the petitioner is not entitled for a notice, since the MoUs already entered into were not in any way cancelled or interfered with. 4. Heard the learned Counsel and considered the matter in the light of the material available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that MoUs were entered into between the parties on yearly basis. It is not the case of the petitioner that once the MoU is entered into, it is entitled for its continuation automatically. Therefore, it cannot be said that any vested right is accrued in favour of the petitioner for seeking renewal as a matter of course. Even if the petitioner is willing to continue the centre and has given its consent, no obligation is cast upon the University to accept the same. In that view of the matter, permission sought for by the petitioner for the academic year 2006-2007 was not accepted by the University and though it sent its consent, the same was not agreed to and no MoU has been executed. Therefore, there is no concluded contract between the parties so as to bind the University. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned letter was sent during the middle of the academic year does not in any way alter the situation. As rightly stated by the respondents, it is not a case of cancellation of the MoU or termination of any contract. What all has been done in the case is that the request of the petitioner for permission to run the centre from the academic year 2006-2007 alone was declined. In that view of the matter, no notice need be given to the petitioner and thus there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition. 6. The writ petition IS accordingly dismissed. No costs.