SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Cal) 191

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
National Insurance Company Limited - Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 2147(W) of 2018
Decided On : 02-02-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Jayanta Mitra Mr. Ranjan Bachawat Mr. Vipul Kundalia Ms. Sonal Shah Mr. Kushagra Shah.
For the Respondents:Mr. Kishore Dutta, Learned Advocate General Mr. Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay Mr. Subhendu Sengupta.

A writ is maintainable in respect of a contract if there is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The activities of the State in the contractual field are amenable to judicial review once they violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

TENDER - Health Insurance Scheme - [AIR 1979 SC 1628, (1999) 1 SCC 492, (2004) 3 SCC 553, (2006) 10 SCC 236] - The court discussed the maintainability of a writ petition in a contractual field, the principle of legitimate expectation, and the public law element in contracts. The court emphasized that a writ is maintainable in respect of a contract if there is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The activities of the State in the contractual field are amenable to judicial review once they violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenges a notice inviting tender for the selection of a Group Health Insurance provider for the 'Swasthya Sathi' Scheme. The petitioner had entered into an agreement with the State of West Bengal for the Scheme, and the dispute arises from the termination of the contract by the State and the subsequent issuance of a fresh tender.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner and the State had entered into an agreement for providing health insurance services to beneficiaries under the Scheme. The court noted the dispute regarding the tenure of the contract and the fulfillment of contractual parameters. The court also considered the maintainability of the writ petition in a contractual field and the principle of legitimate expectation.

Issues: The issues revolve around the interpretation of the contract terms, the validity of the termination of the contract by the State, the maintainability of the writ petition in a contractual field, and the application of the principle of legitimate expectation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a writ is maintainable in respect of a contract if there is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized that the activities of the State in the contractual field are amenable to judicial review once they violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Final Decision: The court declined to pass an interim order at that stage of the writ petition and directed the filing of affidavits. The writ petition will be treated as 'ready for hearing' after the completion of the prescribed time period for filing affidavits.

JUDGMENT :

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 AIR 1979 SC 1628 (Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. The International Airport Authority of India & Ors.), (1999) 1 SCC 492 (Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. & Ors.), (2004) 3 SCC 553 (ABL International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.) and (2006) 10 SCC 236 (Noble Resources Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa & Anr.). He submits that when the State cats arbitrarily or unreasonably, even in contractual field, a writ is maintainable.

4. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State opposes the writ petition. He submits that, the Writ Court should not enter into disputed questions of facts. He draws the attention of the Court to the effect that, the disputes raised are referable to arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the subject contract. He submits that, the contract is a non-statutory one. No public law element is involved in the contract. The State is discharging its duty to provide best health care to its citizens by utilising the limited resources available to it in the best possible way. The State had decided to extend medical health facilities to its citizens and had promulgated the Scheme. The petitioner had obtained contract for nine districts. He refers to the various provisions of the contract and submits that, the contract is on yearly basis and that, the extension of the contract period wou























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top