IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.967 of 2011 1. GYAN BHARTI SHIKSHA AND PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT GYAN BHARTI, 124/59, BLOCK-C, GOVIND NAGAR, KANPUR (U.P.), HEAD OFFICE AT JAGDISH LOK APARTMENT, WEST BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA-800001. 2. ASHOK KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SRI CHANDRAMA SINGH, CHAIRMAN, GYAN BHARTI SHIKSHA AND PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN, JAGDISH LOK APARTMENT, WEST BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA- 800001…………………………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PARIWAR KALYAN BHAWAN, SHEIKHPURA, PATNA-800014. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-PRESIDENT, DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY, JEHANABAD. 4. THE CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER-CUM-MEMBER SECRETARY, DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY, JEHANABAD. ………RESPONDENTS. For the petitioners : M/s Janardan Prasad Singh and Ravi Bhushan Prasad Sinha, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Apurva Kumar, AC to SC-10. ----------- 02/ 28.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents State of Bihar and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for the following reliefs:- (i) To quash that part of the order contained in letter no.527/DHS/Jehanabad dated 23.12.2010 issued under the signature of Civil Surgeon-cum-Member Secretary, District Health Committee, Jehanabad by which the extension of the work contract of the petitioners has been refused. (ii) To quash the short tender notice dated 05.01.2011 issued by respondent nos.3 and 4 and published in daily Hindi newspaper, namely ‘Hindustan’ for 2 different outsourcing work on Public Private Partnership basis at Primary Health Centres, Sadar Hospital, Referral Hospital and Blood Bank. 3. The claim of petitioner is that as per the Clauses of the Agreement between the parties it was specifically provided that if the work of the petitioners is found satisfactory, an extension shall be granted but the authorities concerned without considering the fact that the petitioners had completed the work satisfactorily did not adhere to the said clause in the agreement and issued impugned letter dated 23.12.2010 (Annexure-1) and got published tender notice in the newspaper on 05.01.2011 (Annexure-2) inviting fresh tenders which according to the petitioners was against the government policy as has been clearly mentioned in letter dated 27.05.2010 (Annexure-3) issued by the Executive Director, State Health Society, Bihar. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that the claim of the petitioners is specific violation of the terms of the agreement and hence the proper course for the petitioners would have been Arbitration as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Furthermore, this court does not find any special reason to interfere in the matter when an appropriate alternative remedy is available to the petitioners. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)