Miot Hospitals Private Limited v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR *** WPA/1000/2023 MIOT Hospitals Private Limited Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others Ms. Anjili Nag ... for the petitioner Mr.Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondents November 24, 2023 [SR] Item No.3

1. The matter was earlier adjourned in order to enable Mr. Chakraborty to obtain specific instruction with regard to entitlement and release of Rs.20,32,299/- in favour of the writ petitioner. However, he could not receive any plausible explanation for not releasing the said amount in favour of the writ petitioner.

2. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not releasing its legitimate dues for the services rendered by the writ petitioner.

3. The writ petitioner claims that in the year 2015, the Administration introduced the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Scheme of Health Insurance (ANISHI) with the aim to provide better health care and financial assistance to specific categories of residents.

4. Due to non-availability of specialists in these islands, number of patients were referred to mainland and the

patients used to incur heavy expenditure towards their treatment.

5. With a view to ameliorate the distress caused to the islanders, the Administration entered into a contract with the writ petitioner at Port Blair so that the patients referred to the said hospitals can receive best of the treatments under ANISHI scheme. Pursuant to the said scheme, from time to time, patients were referred and they have treated by the said hospitals.

6. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that in respect of services rendered, a sum of Rs.20,32,299/- has become due and payable as on date of filing of the writ petition.

7. Ms. Nag has referred to various representations made by the petitioner for early disbursement of the aforesaid amount.

8. In paragraph 11 of the writ petition, it has been clearly stated that the said amount was released from the account of the Andaman and Nicobar Administration but has not yet been credited in the account of the writ petitioner. This factual aspect of the matter is not in dispute.

9. It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioner has rendered services in terms of the said Scheme and till date, the said amount has not been credited to the account of the writ petitioner.

10.

The respondent authority did not give any plausible explanation in not releasing the amount. The representations made by the writ petitioner have remained unanswered.

11.

The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement and the matter may be referred to arbitration. 12.

In view of the fact that there is no dispute which requires to be adjudicated and in any event as it appears that the action of the respondent in releasing the amount without any just cause is arbitrary, the writ court is entitled to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to direct payment of the amount irrespective of the existence of arbitration clause. The respondents are expected to act in a transparent and fair manner. 13.

On such consideration, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the authorities to release the said amount of Rs. 20,32,299/- in favour of the writ petitioner within six weeks from date.

14.

The writ petition stands disposed of, however, there shall be no order as to costs.

15.

Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.

( Soumen Sen, J. )