Patna High Court
M/s Abhinav Raj EnterprisesversusThe Patliputra University
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The termination order dated 08‑12‑2025 is set aside and the matter remanded for issuance of a fresh, reasoned show‑cause notice, with the petitioner’s services to continue pending compliance.
Summary
The Patna High Court heard a writ petition filed by M/s Abhinav Raj Enterprises seeking to quash a termination order dated 08‑12‑2025 issued by the Principal of Anugrah Narayan College. The petitioner alleged that the termination was arbitrary, violated natural justice, and ignored its satisfactory replies to show‑cause notices. The college contended that the contract contained an arbitration clause, making the writ petition non‑maintainable, and that the termination was lawful. The Court examined whether the show‑cause notices complied with procedural requirements and held that the termination order lacked a proposal for action, thereby breaching natural‑justice principles. It further ruled that the existence of an arbitration clause does not bar a writ when fundamental procedural rights are violated. Consequently, the termination order was set aside, the matter remanded for a fresh, properly reasoned show‑cause notice, and the petitioner’s services were ordered to continue pending compliance.
Issues considered
- Whether the termination order violates the principles of natural justice and equity.
- Whether the presence of an arbitration clause bars the filing of a writ petition under Article 226.
- Whether the show‑cause notice complied with the requirement of stating a proposed action as per the Control Order, 2016.
- Whether the High Court can entertain the writ despite the availability of an alternative remedy.
Subjects
- natural justice
- arbitration clause
- termination of contract
- Article 226
- show cause notice
- alternative remedy
- security services
- contract law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.270 of 2026
======================================================
M/s Abhinav Raj Enterprises through its proprietor Sri Nagendra Kumar,
male, aged about 39 yrs, S/o- Sri Rameshwar Prasad, R/o- Ghour Dour Road,
Rajiv Nagar, Shahid Bhagat Singh Colony, P.S.- Rajiv Nagar, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Patliputra University Patna through its Registrar.
2. The Registrar, Patliputra University, Patna.
3. The Anugrah Narayan College, Patna through its Principal, A.N. College,
Campus, Patna.
4. The Principal, Anugrah Narayan College, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Adv.
: Mr. Om Prakash, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
3 20-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
“a) For issuance of appropriate
writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) commanding the
respondents to quash the letter vide Ref. No.
G/1177/2025 dated 08.12.2025, whereby and
whereunder the services of the petitioner's agency
have been terminated by the Principal, A.N.
College, Patna, on the alleged grounds of failure to
submit a satisfactory reply and to ensure
improvement in security arrangements, as well as on
the basis of an alleged meeting of the Security
Committee dated 04.12.2025, in which it was
purportedly decided that the petitioner's services
were unsatisfactory and a recommendation was
made for termination with effect from 01.01.2026,
the said action being arbitrary, violative of the
principles of natural justice, and unsustainable in
Patna High Court CWJC No.270 of 2026(3) dt.20-01-2026
2/11
the eye of law.
b) For issuance of appropriate
writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) commanding the
respondents to quash the letter vide letter Ref. No.
G/1232/2025 dated 20.12.2025 whereby and
whereunder the petitioner's representation seeking
reconsideration of the termination order dated
08.12.2025 has been rejected, the said rejection
having been made arbitrarily, with mala fide
intention, without application of mind, and in
violation of the principles of natural justice.
c) For issuance of an appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding the respondents to
allow the petitioner's agency to continue providing
security services till 30.06.2027, in terms of the
existing contractual arrangement dt. 11.02.2023,
and further to direct the respondents to release and
pay the entire arrears of dues/payments legally
payable to the petitioner for the services already
rendered.
d) Pass such other order(s) direction(s)
for which the petitioner is entitled to in the facts and
circumstances of the instant case.”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner has been issued the work
order for providing trained security personnel to the
Respondent/ College and has been working since 2022 without
any complaint from any quarters. That the present Principal of
the Respondent/ College joined the college in the month of
August, 2025 and thereafter, started levelling all kinds of
baseless, frivolous and unsubstantiated allegations against the
petitioner. Learned counsel has stated that prior to the joining of
the present Principal, the petitioner was issued appreciation
Patna High Court CWJC No.270 of 2026(3) dt.20-01-2026
3/11
letters by the previous Principals for the year 2023 and for the
year 2025. That the agreement entered between the parties is
subsisting till 30.06.2027. That after the appointment of the new
Principal (i.e. the respondent No. 4 herein), she has started
issuing notices to the petitioner making all kinds of baseless and
unsubstantiated allegations. That the petitioner has given a
suitable reply to the said notices. That the Principal of the
College without considering the reply sent by the petitioner has
issued the impugned order of termination dated 08.12.2025.
Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the
earlier notices issued by the Principal and also the replies given
by the petitioner herein and submitted that though the petitioner
has given suitable replies to the earlier show cause notices, there
was no logical conclusion to the said show cause notices and
abruptly the impugned order of termination has been passed on
08.12.2025. Learned counsel has stated that a perusal of earlier
show cause notices issued to the petitioner does not reveal that
any action was sought to be taken by the authority against the
petitioner and the order of termination does not avert to the
earlier replies filed by the petitioner. That as a matter of fact, the
petitioner has been requesting the authority to take necessary
remedial steps for providing biometric attendance system and
Patna High Court CWJC No.270 of 2026(3) dt.20-01-2026
4/11
also other suggestions for improving the security but without
heeding to the same, the impugned order of termination has
been passed. Learned counsel has stated that prior to the
issuance of the impugned order of termination, a show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner to which a suitable reply was
given, however the said show cause notice does not contemplate
any action against the petitioner that is action sought to be taken
against the petitioner. That in the absence of any proposal for
taking any action, the passing of the order of termination of
agreement is bad in law and opposes the principles of natural
justice and equity. Learned counsel has therefore, prayed this
Hon’ble Court to allow the present writ petition by setting aside
the impugned order of termination dated 08.12.2025.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent/ College has vehemently opposed the
very maintainability of the present writ petition. Learned
counsel has stated that the authority having found that the
services rendered by the petitioner were very poor, had put the
petitioner on notice and thereafter, taken the necessary action
strictly in accordance with law. Further, learned counsel has
stated that the agreement between the petitioner and the
Respondent/ College is a private contract which provides for
Patna High Court CWJC No.270 of 2026(3) dt.20-01-2026
5/11
settlement of disputes by way of arbitration. That the petitioner
without availing the said remedy has straightaway approached
this Hon’ble Court by way of the present writ petition and the
same is not maintainable. Learned counsel has stated that the
arbitration clause provided in the agreement binds the parties
and, therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed
on this sole ground. Further, it is stated by the learned counsel
that the petitioner after being put on notices, instead of
improving his services has been glossing over his mistakes and
deficiencies. That the authority duly taking note of the facts has
put the petitioner on notice and after, granting an opportunity of
filing an explanation has passed the impugned order of
termination. Therefore, there are no laches or violations of the
principles of natural justice and equity as alleged by the
petitioner. Learned counsel has relied on the following judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. &
Ors. vs. Bridge & Roof Company (India) Ltd. reported in
(1996) 6 SCC 22 and the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 2093
of 2022 (arising out of SLP [C] No. 19496/ 2021).
5. A perusal of the pleadings reveals that the
petitioner was given the work order pursuant to the agreement
entered between the parties from 01.07.2022 till 30.06.2027 and
Patna High Court CWJC No.270 of 2026(3) dt.20-01-2026
6/11
the petitioner has been rendering his services to the respondent/
College.
6. It is pertinent to note that the services rendered by
the petitioner has been appreciated by the previous Principal of
the College which is evidenced from Annexure-P/4 dated
27.03.2025. The factum that the respondent No. 4 herein has
joined the services of the respondent/ College in the Month of
August, 2025 has not been denied, the show cause notices
issued to the petitioner are all dated after the new Principal has
joined the College.
7. A perusal of the show cause notice issued to the
petitioner dated 23.08.2025 reveals that the main allegation
against the petitioner was that the petitioner is not deploying full
strength of security personnel as mandated by the agreement
and during one of the inspections made by the Principal, she
found certain deficiencies in rendering of the services by the
petitioner. Though the petitioner has given a suitable
explanation to the said show cause notice, the authority for
reasons best known has not taken any further action and after
some time has issued another show cause notice with different
set of allegations, this exercise continued till the impugned order
was passed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.270 of 2026(3) dt.20-01-2026
7/11
8. In this background, it has to be deemed that earlier
show cause notice for which the explanation has been submitted
was found to be satisfactory by the authority and the issue
therein has been resolved or dropped. The petitioner was issued
show cause notice dated 21.11.2025 and he has given his
explanation and the impugned order of termination was passed
on 08.12.2025.
9. A perusal of the show cause notice dated
21.11.2025 issued to the petitioner reveals that said the
allegations are made that on physical inspection of the College
Campus, it was found that the vehicles are parked in a
haphazard manner on the campus road thereby obstructing the
traffic, though the deployed guards have repeatedly been told to
ensure proper parking, there was no improvement and that some
of the vehicles plying on the campus road are over-speeding and
the same are not being checked by the security personnel. The
petitioner was asked to file his explanation and the petitioner
has given his reply and thereafter, the impugned order of
termination has been passed. A perusal of the order of
termination reveals that the authority did not find the
explanation submitted by the petitioner to be satisfactory. It is
pertinent to note that in said show cause notice dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.270 of 2026(3) dt.20-01-2026
8/11
21.11.2025, there is no proposal for any action that is sought to
be taken against the petitioner. The impugned order of
termination passed by the authority is liable to be set aside on
this sole ground.
10. A full Bench of this Hon’ble Court while
interpreting the Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order, 2016 in CWJC
No. 21202 of 2021 and analogous cases has held as under;
“19. Accordingly, we answer the
reference as under:-
It is mandatory for a licensing authority
issuing a notice under order 27(ii) to a license to
mention that there is a proposal for cancellation of
his license, failing which such notice cannot be
treated to be a valid notice of giving sufficient
opportunity to the licensee to state his case under
order 27(ii) of the BTPDS Control Order. ”
11. Though the counsel for the Respondent/ College
has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the present
writ petition on the ground of there being an alternative and
effective remedy of invoking the arbitration clause as per the
terms and conditions of the agreement and has relied on the
above mentioned judgments and orders of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
12. It is to be noted that where there is violation of
principles of natural justice and equity, the plea of alternate
remedy cannot be a bar for entertaining a writ petition under
Patna High Court CWJC No.270 of 2026(3) dt.20-01-2026
9/11
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
13. A perusal of impugned order of termination as
well as the show cause notice issued to the petitioner reveals
that the same is in gross violation of the principles of natural
justice and equity and there is no proposal for either termination
of the contract or any action that is sought to be taken against
the petitioner.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant
Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others v Glaxo Smith
Kline Consumer Health Care Limited has held as under:-
“The High Court noted that although it can
entertain a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution, it must not do so that when an aggrieved
person has an effective alternate remedy available in
law. However, certain exceptions to this "rule of
alternate remedy" include where, the statutory
authority has not acted in accordance with the
provisions of the law or acted in defiance of the
fundamental principles of judicial procedure: or has
resorted to invoke provisions, which are repealed; or
where an order has been passed in violation of the
principles of natural justice. Applying this formulation,
the High Court noted that the appellant has an
alternate remedy available under the GST Act and
thus, the petition was not maintainable.”
15. In Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of
Trademarks, Mumbai²¹, The Hon’ble Supreme Court after
reviewing the case law on this point has held as under:
Patna High Court CWJC No.270 of 2026(3) dt.20-01-2026
10/11
"14. The power to issue prerogative writs under
Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is
not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This
power can be exercised by the High Court not only for
issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamüs,
prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the
enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in
Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other
purpose".
15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High
Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a
discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ
petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself
certain restrictions one of which is that if an
effective and efficacious remedy is available, the
High Court would not normally exercise its
jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been
consistently held by this Court not to operate as a
bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where
the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement
of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there
has been a violation of the principle of natural
justice or where the order or proceedings are
wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is
challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this
point but to cut down this circle of forensic
whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of
the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they
still hold the field."
(emphasis supplied)”
16. Having regard to the above, the impugned order
of termination dated 08.12.2025 is set aside and the matter is
remanded back to the respondent No. 3 herein for issuing a fresh
show cause notice containing the reasons for seeking
termination of the agreement and also the proposed action
sought to be taken against the petitioner. After issuance of show
cause notice, the petitioner shall be granted adequate time
Patna High Court CWJC No.270 of 2026(3) dt.20-01-2026
11/11
preferably a minimum period of ten days for filing his
explanation from the date of receipt of the said show cause
notice. After receipt of the explanation, the authority shall pass a
reasoned order giving the reasons either for accepting the
explanation or rejecting the same. Any orders passed shall be
communicated to the petitioner.
17. Needless to observe that before passing any
order, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing.
18. It is also made clear that till such time the final
orders are passed, the services of the petitioner shall be
continued.
19. With the above directions, the present Writ
Petition stands allowed to the extent indicate.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
Ayush/-
U
Checking your session…