- (1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition of the writ petitioner, challenging letter dated 17.04.2009, has been dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 22.02.2011.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that even in a case of non -statutory contract where there is a gross violation of principles of natural justice, the Court can entertain writ petition and grant relief. It is a case of total non -compliance of the principles of natural justice, therefore, the learned Single Judge should not have dismissed the writ petition. It is also submitted that the respondents should have returned the cheques to the writ petitioner and the respondents had no right to modify the agreement between the parties by curtailing the loan amount and re -scheduling the repayment of loan.
(3.) WE are of the considered opinion that in such a matter, the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right to get relief in writ jurisdiction as even in a case where there is no bar against entertainment of the writ petition. Therefore, in view of the above facts of the case, we are of the view that no case is made out by writ petitioner to interfere with the impugned order in spite of the judgment delivered in the case of M/s Pancham Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors reported in : AIR 1991 Pat 168. Hence, the L.P.A, having no merit, is dismissed.;