TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY,J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been preferred challenging inter alia a notice for termination dated 22nd March, 2018 issued by the respondent No. 6.
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details the facts are as follows : a) In the year 2007, the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal represented by the District Health and Family Welfare Samity (in short, DHFWS) entered into an agreement with Advanced Immunogenetic Diagnostic Clinic (in short, the said clinic) represented by the petitioners for the purpose of running a diagnostic clinic at Singur Rural Hospital under Public Private Partnership (in short, PPP). The said agreement was renewed on 14th February, 2014 for a period of five years till 14th October, 2019. Prior to such renewal of the agreement, the petitioner No. 2, who is the Director (Administration) of the said clinic, submitted an application under section 6 of the Right To Information Act, 2005 (in short, RTI Act) on 30th July, 2013. As the said application was not disposed of, a writ petition being WP 37192 (W) of 2013 was preferred and pursuant to the order passed in the same, a reply was furnished by a memo dated 2nd January, 2014 issued by the Special Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Department of Health and Family Welfare. Dissatisfied with the said reply, the petitioner No. 2 submitted a further representation on 27th January, 2014 but the same was not responded to; b) In the midst thereof, a memo dated 26th June, 2014 was issued by the respondent No. 6 directing the petitioner No. 1 to close down the said clinic as it was functioning in consonance with the provisions of the West Bengal Clinical Establishment Rules, 2003 (in short, the said Rules of 2003). Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner No. 1 preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 2 on 15th September, 2015 and as the same was responded to, the petitioner No. 1 preferred a writ petition being WP 6200 (W) of 2015 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 7th March, 2016 directing the respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioner's appeal, in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said order, the respondent No. 2 passed an order on 24th June, 2016; c) Thereafter in connection with the RTI application, an order was passed by the Commission on 24th January, 2018 and pursuant to the directions contained in the same and upon hearing the petitioner on 20th March, 2018, an order was passed by the Appellate Authority directing the respondent No. 6 "to provide answers directly to the questions asked with necessary clarification, if required". Subsequent thereto, the impugned notice dated 22nd March, 2018 was issued by the respondent No. 6.
(3.) Mr. Banerjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned notice dated 22nd March, 2018 was issued without any prior notice intimating the defaults and without granting any opportunity to the petitioners to rectify such defaults and such action is violative of the provisions contained in the clauses 7.1 and 7.2 of the said agreement dated 14th February, 2014. The dispute in question is in connection with termination of services and as such the issue cannot be relegated for arbitration, as would be explicit from the contents of clause 8 of the said agreement.;