Contractual agency and mandamus: no enforceable right to continue levy sugar retail business after notice-based termination.

SC held that a writ of mandamus would not lie to compel continuation of a levy sugar retail agency where the relationship arose from a contract expressly permitting termination on notice. The petitioners had no independent legal right to insist on continued appointment or to trade in levy sugar as of right. The State's policy of replacing private retailers with co-operative or model shops was directed to distribution efficiency and did not amount to illegal discrimination merely because some retailers were replaced earlier than others. The challenge to termination therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to a writ of mandamus to continue as retailers for levy sugar and whether termination of their agency amounted to illegal discrimination.

Analysis: The petitioners' appointment as retailers for levy sugar was founded on agreements with the State containing an express term permitting termination on notice. The relationship was contractual, and the petitioners had no independent legal right to insist upon continuation of the agency or to trade in levy sugar as of right. The State's policy of replacing private retailers with co-operative or model shops was adopted to secure distribution and did not establish actionable discrimination merely because some retailers were replaced first.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to mandamus, and the challenge to termination of their agency failed.

Final Conclusion: The petition was dismissed because the claimed entitlement arose only from a terminable contract and no enforceable legal right to continue the levy sugar retail agency was established.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ of mandamus will not lie to enforce continuation of a purely contractual agency where the contract itself permits termination and no independent legal right is shown.

---