JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is a transporting contractor, seeking to quash Ext.P3 dated 17.02.2018, whereby proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, and the contract awarded to the petitioner, to lift ration articles from various destinations and for delivery at the doorsteps of the Fair Price Shops is terminated. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioner was the successful bidder in the e-tender invited for lifting of rationed articles from source godowns (FCI Depot/CMR godown) to intermediary godown (Taluk Depot) and there-from transport and deliver at the doorsteps of Fair Price Shops notified by the respondents as per notification dated 12.05.2017, evident from Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, petitioner had been discharging his obligations on the basis of Ext.P1 to the satisfaction of the respondents. While so, the CBI Kochi Unit registered Crime No. RC16(A)/2017/CBI/ACB/Cochin dated 29.12.2017, against some of the officials of the FCI and the petitioner and his business partner. The allegation in Ext.P2 FIR is in respect of misappropriation of a truckload of rice, and six load of wheat bags by accused No.1 and 5 and other unknown officials of FCI and sold the same to A6 to A8 in connivance with other unknown private persons thereby causing wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.16 lakhs to FCI and corresponding gain to the accused persons. Petitioner is the 7th accused in the above crime and his partner is the 8th accused. 3. It is also the case of the petitioner that, petitioner had co-operated with the investigation conducted by the CBI. Actually, he had purchased twice certain quantity of rice from the FCI depot which he was told by the officials of the FCI that it is meant for sale in the Open Market Scheme, which is permissible under law, and the rice was purchased by paying due consideration. However, with respect to the second transaction, petitioner had returned lorry load of rice after coming to know that the same is not meant for sale in the open market scheme. 4. While so, on the basis of registration of case, 2nd respondent has passed Ext.P3 order terminating Ext.P1 contract. Petitioner is not served with a copy of the order till date, though in Ext.P3, copy is marked to him. 4. While so, on the basis of registration of case, 2nd respondent has passed Ext.P3 order terminating Ext.P1 contract. Petitioner is not served with a copy of the order till date, though in Ext.P3, copy is marked to him. Petitioner was not heard before terminating the agreement and no notice was served upon him or his explanation was sought for. Thus, in issuing Ext.P3, 2nd respondent has acted in violation of the principles of natural justice, and on that sole ground, Ext.P3 is liable to be interfered with by this Court. 5. A detailed statement is filed by respondents 1 to 4, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions, it is stated that, the Regional Manager of the respondent Corporation Kozhikode, has reported that the CBI, ACB Kochi Unit, had conducted a raid in the godown of M/s. R&S Company at Vidyanagar in Kasaragod Taluk on 18.11.2017, and found that FCI rice was kept unauthorizedly and more than 8 bundles of plastic bags (each containing 500 bags) and around 150 loose bags printed as RS Brand, Superior quality Rice, Boiled/Raw, Net Weight 50 Kgs. were found kept in one of the rooms of the godown. On investigation, it was revealed that the above mentioned plastic bags are being used to re-pack the FCI rice in the bags for selling them in the open market. 6. It is also stated that, the raid was conducted consequent to receipt of reliable information that 212 bags of FCI rice and six loads of wheat bags have been misappropriated by some FCI officials in connivance with the other unknown private persons for pecuniary gain. Accordingly, a crime is registered alleging offences under Sections 409 and 420 IPC. Thereupon, CBI was requested to forward a copy of the FIR to ensure the involvement of the writ petitioner in the case. On the basis of the FIR forwarded, it was revealed that, the ration food-grains from FCI, Thikkodi was diverted to a private godown at Vidyanagar in Kasaragod owned by the petitioner and another person named Shanthakumar on 22.05.2017, and sold in the local market in Kasaragod by repacking the FCI rice in new plastic bags with printings “RS Brand, Superior Quality Rice” and the name of the above two persons are included as 7th and 8th accused in the FIR. As per the FIR, accused had also illegally transported more truckloads of wheat from FCI, Thikkodi on 04.01.2017 in connivance with the FCI officials and sold off the food-grains in black market. 7. It is further submitted that, the Depot Manager, Kasaragod has reported that the writ petitioner is the transporting contractor for lifting of food-grains from FCI to PDS Depot and to Fair Price Shops in Manjeshwaram and Kasaragod Taluks. It is also submitted that, as per clause 3 of the transportation agreement, the 1st respondent Corporation reserves the right to terminate the contract at any time during the currency of the contract, if the contractor acts detrimental to the interest of the Corporation/Government. In the crime, writ petitioner is the 7th accused, and therefore, the incident violates the terms of the tender conditions. 8. Furthermore, the eligibility to participate in the tender was clearly explained in Clause 9 of the tender conditions, which reads as follows: “The tenders received from any parties/firms who were convicted or against whom any kind of criminal cases are pending or any complaint or FIR filed by Supplyco or any party/firms who were involved in any cases filed as per Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 or any other statute/rules for PDS or any close relatives or family members of such accused or convicted persons or any party or firm which are black listed by Supplyco, will not be accepted or considered for acceptance”. 9. According to the respondents, the above clause was incorporated in the tender conditions in furtherance of Ext.R1(a) Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.9902 of 2017. The apprehension of the petitioner in the said case was that, if proper persons are not provided with tenders for transportation of the subsidized food-grains, the food-grains may not ultimately reach fair price shops and hence, would deprive the beneficiaries of their legitimate supply of food-grains. It was specifically stated that, persons who have criminal background facing prosecution in respect of violation of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and other serious criminal offences, would apply and get the tender, thus frustrating the very object of the National Food Security Act. 10. It was specifically stated that, persons who have criminal background facing prosecution in respect of violation of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and other serious criminal offences, would apply and get the tender, thus frustrating the very object of the National Food Security Act. 10. In the said case, the Corporation as well as the Government filed affidavits, stating that no persons of such criminal background shall be permitted to participate in the tender process, and for that, they would require the tenderers to submit proper affidavit clearly stating that they nor their close relatives or family members, are involved in any offences under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act or orders issued in relation thereto. It was also assured that, accused in any serious crime involving moral turpitude would be kept away from awarding the tender. It was recording the above submission, the writ petition was disposed of. 11. It is also contended that, the action of the petitioner violates the affidavit submitted before the Corporation and the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the contract, thereby only Ext.P3 order is passed, terminating the contract, and therefore, the action is fully justified. 12. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 14. The sole question that arises for consideration in this case is, whether any manner of interference is warranted to Ext.P3 order passed by the 2nd respondent. The discussion made above would make it clear that, the petitioner, who was awarded with a contract to lift ration articles from FCI Depot, has prima facie indulged in serious criminal offences. It is also evident that, it was on the basis of Ext.R1(a) judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, Clause 3 was incorporated into Ext.P1 agreement, in which, it is clearly covenanted that the first party reserves the right to terminate the agreement during the currency of the agreement, if it is satisfied that any discrepancy had crept in while finalizing the tender, that the work was accorded by mistake or the second party had found to be acted detrimental to the interest of the Corporation/Government or any erroneous situation detected. 15. 15. It is the prime contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, mere registration of a crime arraying the petitioner as an accused is not the conclusion of the proceedings and unless and until a finality is attained, culpability of the petitioner cannot be finalized. The FIR registered is on the basis of certain prima facie opinion formed by the investigation agency, and on mere registration of FIR, it cannot be heard to say that petitioner is involved in the crime. Therefore, in order to attain a meaning to the covenant contained under clause 3 referred to above, there is no finality or conclusion to the prima facie case formed by the investigating agency, and unless and until it is found that petitioner has acted detrimental to the interest of the Corporation, action contemplated under clause 3, cannot be implemented. 16. However, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation submitted that, it is clearly stated in clause (3) that, if any erroneous situation is detected during the currency of the contract, and on finding that the contractor has acted detrimental to the interest of the Corporation, the Corporation is vested with ample powers to terminate the contract without any notice. It is also the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the parties have entered into a contract and unless and until it is found that clause 3 of the contract is in any manner void, same is binding on both the parties to the contract. Therefore, it is submitted that, petitioner has not made out any case of violation of the principles of natural justice or any illegality, thus enabling this Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. I have evaluated the rival contentions made at the Bar and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. It is clearly evident, and undisputed that, in Ext.P1, there is a clear covenant entered into by and between the parties agreeing to terminate the contract, if and when the petitioner is found to be acted detrimental to the interest of the Corporation or any erroneous situation is detected. It is clearly evident, and undisputed that, in Ext.P1, there is a clear covenant entered into by and between the parties agreeing to terminate the contract, if and when the petitioner is found to be acted detrimental to the interest of the Corporation or any erroneous situation is detected. It is an admitted fact that petitioner is the 7th accused in Ext.P2 crime registered by the CBI, Kochi Unit, alleging offences under Sec.120-B r/w Sections 409 and 420 IPC and under Sec.13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is a significant and clear indication of having acted against the interest of the Corporation. 18. In my considered opinion, having entered into a contract agreeing to maintain moral discipline and standards, when a case is detected against the petitioner, it can be treated as an erroneous situation detected during the course of the contract, which is found to be detrimental to the interest of the Corporation. Therefore, prima facie, petitioner has indulged in an activity against the terms of clause 3 of Ext.P1 agreement. In that view of the matter, and since the petitioner has agreed that on detection of any such situations, the contract can be terminated, petitioner is estopped from turning around and challenge the action of the respondents on registration of Ext.P2 crime. Be it noted, it is a commercial contract entered into by and between the parties on terms agreed upon, and unless and until it is shown that the particular term of the contract is void, it is imperatively binding on the parties. Petitioner has not even raised any contention, that the term of contract is void or in violation of any of the rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution of India. 19. So also, yet another question sought for consideration is, whether the petitioner merely arrayed in the crime, without any final conclusion, can be treated, acted detrimental to the interest of the Corporation and detection of erroneous situation, in terms of the contract entered into by and between the parties. However, it is crystal clear, there is no agreement entered into by and between the parties stipulating that, only on culmination of the criminal proceedings, the termination can be effected. Moreover, the contractors involved in supply of ration articles must be scrupulously honest and dedicated in all respects, to avoid any sort of complaint from any sources. 20. However, it is crystal clear, there is no agreement entered into by and between the parties stipulating that, only on culmination of the criminal proceedings, the termination can be effected. Moreover, the contractors involved in supply of ration articles must be scrupulously honest and dedicated in all respects, to avoid any sort of complaint from any sources. 20. Taking into account all these aspects, I am of the considered opinion that, petitioner has not made out any established circumstances of arbitrariness or illegality justifying interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Needless to say, writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed. However, if the petitioner has got any financial transactions to be settled with the respondent Corporation, the rights and liberty of the petitioner are left open to raise any claim with respect to the same, and if any such claims are received, same will be considered by the Corporation in accordance with law, at the earliest possible time.