JUDGMENT : Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.07.2021 whereby the registration of a firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia has been cancelled by the respondent authorities in the Oil India Limited, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of the same. The petitioner has also sought for a direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate direction or order to the respondent authorities in the Oil India Limited to renew the earlier registration number i.e. Registration no. D/606 in relation to the firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia as a proprietorship concern. 2. The background facts leading to the institution of the writ petition can be briefly stated as follows : Sri Pranjal Chutia had originally registered his proprietorship firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia in the year 2000 with the respondent Oil India Limited vide Registration no. D/606. The registration of M/s Pranjal Chutia as a contractor in the OIL for civil engineering works was originally effected on 17.04.2000 pursuant to an application submitted by Sri Pranjal Chutia bearing no. P-42/045 dated 15.09.1998. The proprietorship concern, M/s Pranjal Chutia was registered, as per the terms and conditions incorporated in a letter dated 17.04.2000, for submission of tenders and for carrying out civil engineering jobs, if a contract is awarded, : [i] as a Class D contractor; [ii] as a proprietorship firm; and [iii] to participate in tenders for work up to a value of Rs. 2,00,000/-. At a later point of time on 16.12.2013, Sri Pranjal Chutia had executed a Deed of Partnership with the petitioner in order to convert the proprietorship firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia into a partnership firm by retaining the same name and to carry out the business of the earlier proprietorship firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia with the respondent Oil India Limited as a partnership firm. The petitioner is the wife of Sri Pranjal Chutia. The terms and conditions of the partnership firm were incorporated in the registered Deed of Partnership bearing no. 1073 dated 16.12.2013, which was registered before the Sub-Registrar, Dibrugarh. The said registered Deed of Partnership was thereafter, submitted along with an application dated 30.12.2013 before the respondent Oil India Limited with the request to register the firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia as a partnership firm. Upon consideration of the application, the respondent Oil India Limited vide its letter bearing no. 1073 dated 16.12.2013, which was registered before the Sub-Registrar, Dibrugarh. The said registered Deed of Partnership was thereafter, submitted along with an application dated 30.12.2013 before the respondent Oil India Limited with the request to register the firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia as a partnership firm. Upon consideration of the application, the respondent Oil India Limited vide its letter bearing no. CONT/CIV/344/2016 dated 27.02.2016 informed the firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia that the status of the firm stood converted from proprietorship firm to partnership firm in its records on the basis of the Deed of Partnership bearing no. 1073 dated 16.12.2013, an affidavit dated 27.03.2015 and a Revocable General Power of Attorney dated 27.03.2015 and on grant of approval by the Competent Authority in the Oil India Limited. The letter dated 27.02.2016 further informed that the partnership firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia had been registered with immediate effect but the same would be subject to the terms and conditions incorporated therein. The terms and conditions included the situations under which the registration would be liable to be cancelled. 3. The partnership firm, M/s Prajal Chutia continued to carry on its business with the respondent Oil India Limited during the subsequent period. But, after serving a Show Cause Notice -cum -Notice for Cancellation of Registration of firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia in OIL dated 17.05.2021, the respondent authorities by the impugned order of cancellation of registration dated 19.07.2021 cancelled the registration of the firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia despite receipt of a reply to the Show -Cause Notice from the end of the petitioner on 01.06.2021. 4. I have heard Mr. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent authorities in the Oil India Limited. 5. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the earnings from the business carried out by the partnership firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia with the respondent Oil India Limited were not sufficient for sustenance of the family of the petitioner as the income generated from the partnership firm was occasional in nature. For such reasons, the husband of the petitioner was in the lookout of a job of permanent nature. For such reasons, the husband of the petitioner was in the lookout of a job of permanent nature. When M/s Assam Gas Company Limited initiated a recruitment process, Sri Pranjal Chutia submitted his candidature for a Grade -IV post and in the selection process undertaken by M/s Assam Gas Company Limited thereafter, he was selected. After consideration of the pros and cons, Sri Pranjal Chutia decided to join in the Grade -IV post in M/s Assam Gas Company Limited when it was offered to him, on 26.09.2016. Though an intimation as regards such joining in a job in M/s Assam Gas Company Limited ought to have intimated to the respondent authorities in the Oil India Limited in time but the same could not, however, be intimated in time due to omission on the part of Sri Pranjal Chutia and the petitioner. Mr. Chakraborty has, thus, submitted that the said act of omission which was not deliberate and intentional, had resulted into issuance of the show cause notice from the end of the respondent authorities on 17.05.2021 and ultimately, cancellation of the registration of the firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia by the impugned order dated 19.07.2021. It is his submission that the decision on the part of the respondent Oil India Limited authorities to cancel the registration of the firm was arbitrary in view of the fact that a Deed of Retirement dated 18.04.2018 was already executed by Sri Pranjal Chutia and thereafter, the same was submitted before the respondent Oil India Limited authorities on 14.05.2018 vide a letter of even date by the petitioner. 6. Mr. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the cancellation of the registration has been made in conformity with the terms and conditions governing the registration and cancellation of registration incorporated in the letter dated 27.02.2016. The principles of natural justice were also duly followed as the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 17.05.2021 stating therein the reasons for which the cancellation was contemplated and the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the registration of the firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia should not be cancelled as it ceased to be a partnership firm upon the retirement of one of the two partners, namely, Sri Pranjal Chutia. He has further submitted that the arrangement entered into by the parties herein are not governed by any statutory contract. He has further submitted that the arrangement entered into by the parties herein are not governed by any statutory contract. As the contractual arrangement between the parties were strictly in the realm of private law, any dispute arising out of such contractual arrangement in the realm of private law cannot be agitated in a writ petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is a remedy in public law. 7. I have duly considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials on record, brought by the parties through their pleadings. 8. The parties are not in dispute that originally the firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia was registered with the respondent OIL as a proprietorship firm. On and from 27.02.2016, the registration of the firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia had been converted to a partnership firm from a proprietorship firm in the records of the respondent Oil India Limited and the registration as partnership firm was to be governed by the then existing terms and conditions and policies of the respondent Oil India Limited in force. 9. Sub-clause [iii] of Clause 2.0 of the letter bearing no. CONT/CIV/344/2016 dated 27.02.2016 had provided as under : “[iii] Registration will get cancelled in the event of : [a] Retirement or death of all the Original Partners [whose names appear in the registered deed of Partnership at the time of applying for registration]. [b] Converting the partnership firm into a proprietary firm, except in the event of death of other partners. [c] Any of the partners is also a registered contractor either as proprietor or an partner of any other firm having Registration [as Civil Engineering contractor] in OIL. [d] Any of the Partners is/are already employed in any Government/Quasi Govt./Public Sector Undertaking etc. [e] Any of the partners get employed in any Government/Quasi Govt./Public Sector Undertaking etc. in future & same is not intimated to Company within 2 weeks from the date of joining in the services. [f] Submission of fraudulent document while applying for conversion of proprietorship firm to partnership firm.” 10. As per the respondent Oil India Limited, such conversion was carried out pursuant to a notification bearing Ref. no. in future & same is not intimated to Company within 2 weeks from the date of joining in the services. [f] Submission of fraudulent document while applying for conversion of proprietorship firm to partnership firm.” 10. As per the respondent Oil India Limited, such conversion was carried out pursuant to a notification bearing Ref. no. CONT/CIV/166/2013 dated 18.06.2013 wherein it was inter alia provided that there had to be a request for conversion of a proprietorship firm to a partnership firm by the proprietor himself/herself for OIL registered Civil Engineering Contractors with inclusion of person[s] within the legal heir[s] of the sole proprietor as partner[s]. The term ‘Legal Heir’ included the proprietor’s dependant spouse. A copy of the notification bearing Ref. no. CONT/CIV/166/2013 dated 18.06.2013 is part of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Oil India Limited authorities. As the new partner to be included i.e. the petitioner was the wife of the then existing proprietor of the firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia i.e. Sri Pranjal Chutia, the respondent Oil India Limited authorities had allowed the conversion of the already registered firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia from proprietorship firm to partnership firm, when the application was submitted for such conversion along with the registered Deed of Partnership bearing no. 1073 dated 16.12.2013. Along with the application for conversion, Sri Pranjal Chutia also submitted a notarized copy of a registered Revocable General Power of Attorney bearing no. 3654 dated 16.12.2013 appointing the petitioner as the lawful attorney of the firm. Further, both the partners of the firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia submitted a joint affidavit dated 27.03.2015 along with the application for conversion and Clause 8 and Clause 9 of the joint affidavit read as under : 8. That, we undertake that in the event of employment of any or all of the partners of the Firm in OIL or any Government/quasi or semi Government/Public Sector Undertakings in future, it would be binding upon us jointly and severally to inform the Head-Contracts in writing forthwith about such employment and also undertake that such partner[s] shall retire from the partnership from the partnership firm. 9. 9. That, we also undertake that in the event of detention of any false declaration or concealment of facts in connection with the registration as contractor in OIL, we shall be liable jointly and severally for appropriate action by OIL, including cancellation of registration of the aforementioned Firm by OIL. 11. Pursuant to such conversion on and from 27.02.2016, Sri Pranjal Chutia joined in the post of Helper – I under Instrumentation Department of M/s Assam Gas Company Limited. In a letter bearing no. PF[PC]2016/662/59 dated 29.07.2020 issued by M/s Assam Gas Company Limited, it has been certified that Sri Pranjal Chutia has been working in M/s Assam Gas Company Limited as a regular employee since 01.09.2016. M/s Assam Gas Company Limited is a Government of Assam Undertaking and is, thus, a public sector undertaking. It is only on 18.04.2018, the then two partners of the partnership firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia executed a Deed of Retirement wherein it was declared that the partnership between them shall be deemed to have dissolved by mutual consent on and from 18.04.2018 and the petitioner as the continuing partner would be entitled to carry on the business of the firm named M/s Pranjal Chutia as the proprietor. The Deed of Partnership had further mentioned that the petitioner as the continuing partner would become sole proprietor of the erstwhile proprietorship firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia. 12. As has been already noted that Clause 2.0 [iii][e] of the letter dated 27.02.2016 has provided that if any of the partners of the partnership firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia gets an employment in any Government/Quasi Government/Public Sector Undertaking etc. in future and the same is not intimated to the Company within 2 [two] weeks from the date of joining in the services, the registration of the firm as a partnership firm would get cancelled. in future and the same is not intimated to the Company within 2 [two] weeks from the date of joining in the services, the registration of the firm as a partnership firm would get cancelled. Since it is an admitted position that the employment of Sri Pranjal Chutia and his joining on 01.09.2016 in the post of Helper -I under Instrumentation Department of M/s Assam Gas Company Limited, a Government of Assam undertaking and a public sector enterprise, was not intimated within a period of 2 [two] weeks from 01.09.2016 i.e. the date of joining of Sri Pranjal Chutia in the said post, it clearly emerges that there was violation on the part of the petitioner of the condition incorporated in Clause 2.0 of the letter dated 27.02.2016 about not intimating the subsequent employment of Sri Pranjal Chutia, the erstwhile partner of the partnership firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia within the prescribed time period. Outlining the reason of likely cancellation of the registration of the partnership firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia a show cause notice dated 17.05.2021 was duly served upon the petitioner giving her the opportunity to show cause in writing within 15 days from the date of issuance of the notice as to why the registration of the firm shall not be cancelled. In the reply dated 01.06.2021 to the show cause notice dated 17.05.2021, the petitioner admitted that the matter of retirement of Sri Pranjal Chutia from the partnership firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia was informed only on 14.05.2018. The petitioner had stated that since they were not sure about confirmation of the service of Sri Pranjal Chutia in M/s Assam Gas Company Limited till April, 2018 they decided to wait till such confirmation to the respondent Oil India Limited authorities about the likely re-constitution of the firm. 13. In view of the above fact situation obtaining in the case, this Court is of the view that the decision of the respondent authorities in the Oil India Limited taken for cancellation of registration of the partnership firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia was in accordance with the terms and conditions governing such registration, more particularly, Clause 2.0 of the letter dated 27.02.2016. It cannot be said that the decision for cancellation of the registration was taken in violation of the principles of natural justice and without affording any prior opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It cannot be said that the decision for cancellation of the registration was taken in violation of the principles of natural justice and without affording any prior opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The only consequence in case of breach of such a nature, as per the terms and conditions of the contractual arrangement between the parties, was cancellation of registration of the party breaching the term. From such standpoint, the steps of cancellation of registration taken by the respondent Oil India Limited cannot be termed as arbitrary. The contractual arrangement existing between the petitioner and the respondent Oil India Limited was in the realm of private law and their relationship was not governed by any kind of statutory contract. In case of any dispute arising out of such a contract the same is not to be agitated in a writ petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same can only be agitated in a civil court or arbitration if provided for in the contract. A reference in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Kerala State Electricity Board and another vs. Kurien E. Kalathil and others, reported in [2000] 6 SCC 293. It is held therein that the interpretation and implementation of a clause in a contract cannot be subject-matter of a writ petition. Even if there is any violation of a term of a contract, ordinarily the remedy is not a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons assigned therein, this writ petition is found devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost. 15. It is observed that despite dismissal of this writ petition, it will be open for the petitioner to make an application for registration afresh and in the event of submission of such an application for registration by the petitioner before the respondent Oil India Limited, the respondent Oil India Limited authorities shall consider the same on its own merits and as per its extant guidelines, norms, rules and regulations.