The court emphasized that despite being a contractual matter, the State or its instrumentalities cannot act arbitrarily in dealing with private parties, and the existence of an arbitration clause does not debar the court from entertaining a writ petition.

JUDGMENT

Suvra Ghosh, J. - As all these writ petitions pertain to similar issues of law and facts, they are taken up for consideration by a common judgment.

2. The petitioners in all the matters have prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to extend the license period of the petitioners for another two years in terms of clause 40 of the contract agreement and to withdraw/rescind the letters issued on 24th February, 2022 and 25th February, 2022 and also the impugned tender notice dated 4th April, 2022.

3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners were granted fishing rights in the lakes in question by virtue of contract agreement executed by and between the parties and paid licence fee in terms of the said agreement. Upon expiry of the term of the agreement, the petitioners applied for extension of the tender for a further period of two years in terms of clause 40 of the Special Specification and Special Conditions of Contract before the authority prior to expiry of the term of the contract.

4. The concerned authority accepted the proposal of the petitioners and directed them to deposit the first instalment of licence fee for the first extended year within 25th February, 2022 i.e., about a day or two from the date of the application. Expressing their inability to deposit the licence fee within such short time, the petitioners requested for 15 days? time to pay the said fees which was not acceded to by the respondents who floated a fresh tender notice with regard to the water bodies in question on 4th April, 2022.

5. In WPA 7514 of 2022, the petitioners? prayer for extension of the lease was outrightly turned down by the authority.

6. In assailing the orders of the authority, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that extension of lease can be made through a unilateral process on the option of one of the parties to the lease and the other party has no option but to accept the option for renewal exercised by the other. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the authorities in Smt. Renuka Seal and Others v/s. Smt. Sabitri Dey and Others reported in AIR 2008 Calcutta 75 and State of U.P. and others v/s. Lalji Tandon (dead) through LRS reported in (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1 in support of his contention.

7. At the outset, the respondents have challenged the maintainability of the writ petitions on two fold grounds:- firstly, clause 63 of the Indian Railways Standard General Conditions of Contract provides for arbitration for settlement of disputes arising out of or in connection with the contract, which has not been availed of by the petitioners. Secondly, the dispute arose out of a contractual obligation between the private parties and the State and there is no element of public law to invoke article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the respondents has taken the Court to Section 51 of the Contract Act, 1872 which deals with reciprocal promise to be simultaneously performed by the parties. No prima facie case of arbitrariness, malafide or malice has been made out by the petitioners to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court. Public auction has been floated and the petitioners were not restrained from participating in the said auction. The petitioners have neither complied with the terms of the contract pertaining to extension, nor have participated in the auction floated by the authority and as such, are debarred from claiming any relief before the writ Court.

8. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the authorities in Silppi Constructions Contractors v/s. Union of India and Another reported in (2020) 16 Supreme Court Cases 489 and Joshi Technologies International Inc. v/s. Union of India and Others reported in (2015) 7 Supreme Court Cases 728.

9. According to the Union of India, the cause espoused by the petitioners in recalling the tender notice and extending the privilege of continuing with the fishing to the petitioners is in i