Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioner assails a notice inviting tender dated January 15, 2018 issued by the respondent no. 3 for selection of Group Health Insurance provider for "Swasthya Sathi" Scheme (in short Scheme).
(2.) Learned senior advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the State of West Bengal on December 26, 2016 in respect of the Scheme. He draws the attention of the Court to page 207 of the writ petition, which is the contract. He submits that, the terms of the contract provide that, the contract would be for a period of three years to be renewed yearly. The manner of renewal is prescribed. The performance of the petitioner is to be assessed in terms of Appendix 8 of the contract. The petitioner fulfils all the relevant conditions of Appendix 8. The petitioner has scored impressively on all parameters of Appendix 8 excepting with regard to claims. He submits that, lodgment of claim is fortuitous. The petitioner being given a contract for nine districts, the situation in such districts for the year did not give rise to large number of claims. The petitioner has nothing to do with the number of claims that may be filed. There is no contemporaneous complain from respondent authorities as to any deficiency of service of the petitioner. The petitioner had expended large amounts in adhering to the terms and conditions of the contract. The terms and conditions of the contract require the petitioner to discharge various obligations. The petitioner had discharged such obligations to the satisfaction of the respondents. Having expended such large amounts, the petitioner has a legitimate expectation that, the contract would not be terminated abruptly as sought to be done by the writing dated January 25, 2018. By such writing, the petitioner was called upon to renew the contract for a period of two months. The same was not accepted by the petitioner on the ground as enumerated in the reply letter of the petitioner. He submits that, the petitioner was granted contract for nine districts and that in respect of two of the districts, the policies are valid till February 28, 2018. The respondents have proceeded on a preconceived and pre-determined mind to issue a notice inviting tender on January 15, 2018 without the period of the validity of the contract expiring. He submits that, this action of the respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable and should be quashed.
(3.) In support of the contention that, the writ petition is maintainable in respect of a contract, learned senior advocate for the petitioner relies upon (Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. The International Airport Authority of India & Ors, 1979 AIR(SC) 1628), (Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. & Ors, 1999 1 SCC 492), (ABL International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors, 2004 3 SCC 553) and (Noble Resources Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa & Anr, 2006 10 SCC 236). He submits that when the State cats arbitrarily or unreasonably, even in contractual field, a writ is maintainable.;