- (1.) IT is the case of the writ petitioners that pursuant to an agreement entered into by and between the respondent no.5, the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dakshin Dinajpur and the writ petitioner no.1, a Non-Government Organization, it was allowed to run a Rogi Sahayata Kendra at the premises of Gangarampur Sub-Divisional Hospital. Although the writ petitioner was running the said Rogi Sahayata Kendra best to the satisfaction of the respondent authorities and the patients but all on a sudden by the impugned letter being Annexure-P11 to this writ application, the respondent authority has now asked the petitioners to stop service at Rogi Sahayata Kendra and to vacate the site by 30th September, 2012 and then made a publication in the news paper inviting project proposal from the willing parties, Annexure-P14.
(2.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that even after expiry of contract period of service on 31st December, 2011, the writ petitioners were permitted to run the said Rogi Sahayata Kendra till September, 2012. There was no laches or negligence on their part in running said Rogi Sahayata Kendra and providing service to the patient and no complaint was ever forthcoming against the writ petitioners from any quarter. It is further submitted that immediately after receipt of the impugned letter i.e. the notice of termination, the writ petitioners made a representation to the respondent no.5 being Annexure P13 to this writ application for extension of service duration, but without disposing of their representation, the respondent authority gave a paper advertisement inviting application from the NGO/CBOs for running Rogi Sahayata Kendra at Gangarampur Sub-Divisional Hospital. It is vehemently contended that the impugned action of the respondent authorities is in clear violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution and the principle of natural justice. On that other hand, the learned Counsel for the State vehemently opposed this application and draws my attention to the contract for providing service from Rogi Sahayata Kendra, which is Annexure P12 to this writ application and submitted that the agreement was for providing service for a period of six months up to 31st December, 2012 and after expiry of such period, having asked the petitioners to stop service and to vacate the site, the respondent authority has not committed any illegality. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the parties. I find from the Annexure-P12 that pursuant thereto the petitioners were to provide service from the Rogi Sahayata Kendra at Gangarampur Sub-Divisional Hospital for a period of six months, which was ended on 31st December, 2011 and therefore, by inviting fresh project proposal from the willing NGO/CBOs for running the said Rogi Sahayata Kendra, the respondent authority has not committed any legal wrong. This is a case where the contract entered into by and between the writ petitioner and the respondent authorities is not a statutory one but purely contractual. The right and liabilities of the parties are governed by the terms of such contract and therefore if there is any breach of terms of such contract remedy lies elsewhere. Apart from that admitted only after expiry of period contract application was invited from the willing parties for running the Rogi Sahayata Kendra and thus there cannot be any breach of terms of contract. No case has been made that the respondent authorities acted in excess of their jurisdiction and not in accordance with law.
(3.) IN my opinion, that non-consideration of the petitioners ' representation for extension of period of contract, after its expiry does not amount to violation either of principle of natural justice or the Article 14 of the Constitution, as no vested right was created out of the said contract in favour of the writ petitioners for extension of period of contract even after its expiry. This writ application has no merit and accordingly stands dismissed and without any order to the costs. It is now submitted that already date for submission of application has been expired and the writ petitioner who was running the said Sahayata Kendra for months together without any blemish be permitted to apply and submit its proposal. Considering this submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioner, I direct the respondent authority, as a special case, to permit the writ petitioner to submit its project proposal, if such proposal is made within a week from this date but selection will be made in accordance with norms and guidelines framed in this regard.;