Vacation Notice, on receipt of letter dated 14.11.2020 from the Government, wherein the Government is stated to have observed certain irregularities in granting extension of license. There is no whisper about any violation of the conditions of license. Thus, it is obvious that the appellants / 2nd and 3rd respondents acted at the instance of the State Government as it’s instrumentalities, but not on any purported grounds of infraction of contractual terms or in their capacity as licensors. Curiously, though the said notice speaks of taking necessary action to cancel the license / lease by the Metropolitan Commissioner, VMRDA, the writ petitioner / 1st respondent was dispossessed / evicted while license is subsisting by deploying police personnel in less than 24 hours on a Sunday. The action of the appellants / 2nd and 3rd respondents, thus, is independent of the contractual relationship between the parties and based on the directive of the State Government to its instrumentalities. In such circumstances, the actions of the authorities / appellants should be fair, reasonable and in compliance with the principles of natural justice, but should not smack of arbitrariness. In the present case, admittedly, no order of cancellation, much less, a notice proposing cancellation was issued. A copy of the Government’s letter was not even served on the writ petitioner / 1st respondent. Since the appellants / 2nd and 3rd respondents, as seen from the notice sought to initiate purported action on the ground of certain irregularities stated to have been observed by the Government, the writ petitioner should have been afforded a reasonable opportunity, which is conspicuously absent in the case on hand and constitutes violation of principles of natural justice. In such view of the matter, the invocation of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is valid.
