Judgment S. Chatterji, J. 1. THE present Rule was issued on 17.5.1985 at the instance of the writ petitioner praying inter alia for a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to settle the claims lodged by the petitioners and communicate their decision with regard to the claims in consequences of the loss and damage sustained by the petitioner due to the flood in the year 1978 and for other consequential reliefs as stated in details in the writ petition. It is stated in details that the petitioner is a registered Partnership firm carrying on Cold Storage business. THE plant and machinery were installed and these were extremely sensitive requiring stable temperature. THE petitioners proposed to insure their stock of potatoes stored in the cold storage premises situated at Chilleydanga, P.S. Pursura in the District of Hooghly for a total sum of Rs. 17 lacs against the contingencies stipulated with the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 viz., National Insurance Company, Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company of different divisions and the New India Assurance Company. THE petitioner also proposed to insure the buildings, plant and machinery and installation and racks of the cold storage for a total sum of Rs. 28 lacs with the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 respectively. THEre is also an agreement that the respondent No. 2 Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company towards the deterioration of Stock Policy for a sum of Rs. 22 lots and machinery break down policy for a sum of Rs. 8.18 lacs. It is alleged that the respondent No. 1 the National Insurance Company Limited gave out in writing on 7th of February, 1979 by issuing Insurance Policy bearing No. 320/124811 (M) in favour of the petitioner against the contingencies and/or perils of fire, riot, M.D. Explosion, E.F.S. Cyclone and Flood etc., on the conditions stipulated in the said policy to the extent of RS. 10 lacs on stock of potatoes stored in the cold storage. It is further alleged that a clause was incorporated in the Policy indicating inter alia : "It is hereby declared and noted that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Policy or in any of its conditions this Policy covers destruction of or damage to the property hereby insured caused by change of temperature resulting from total or partial destruction or disablement by fire and other perils covered under this Policy, and the refrigerating plant." 2. VARIOUS clauses in the policy have been referred in the writ petition for appreciating the rights and obligations of the respective parties. It is placed on record that on March 7, 1978, the petitioner approached the respondent No. 4 in insuring the buildings, plant and machinery as well as stock of potatoes lying with the drawing safe and the petitioner sent a cheque for Rs. 9,800/-. There is a communication from the petitioner to cover the risk of deterioration of temperature clause of stock policy. There is a reference of chain of correspondences between the parties as elaborately disclosed in writ petition. It is specifically claimed that subsequent to the contract entered into by and between the petitioner and the respondents and premium being accepted after approval and/or acceptance of the proposal of the petitioner, there was an unprecedented flood inundating cold storage premises and as a result thereof, there was a huge damage of potatoes in the cold storage as well as there was a building, plant and machinery. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner duly informed about the aforesaid flood by addressing several telegrams and letters to all the respondents. The petitioner allegedly intimated that it sustained a loss to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs and the petitioner lodged a claim for the aforesaid amount. By a letter dated 13th November, 1978 addressed to the Surveyor, Messrs. Ascon and Avins of 14, India Exchange Place, Calcutta detailing the particulars of loss sustained by the petitioners. There is an allegation that the claim has not been settled and the petitioner has been compelled to come to the Writ Court to seek reliefs that the actions taken by the respondent authorities are contrary to law and prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The writ petition is contested by the respondents by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. A common defence is taken that the parties entered into commercial contracts and even if there is any breach, the remedies are only available by way of suit for damages against the respondents insurer companies and not by filing a writ petition. The writ petition is contested by the respondents by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. A common defence is taken that the parties entered into commercial contracts and even if there is any breach, the remedies are only available by way of suit for damages against the respondents insurer companies and not by filing a writ petition. It is placed on record that pursuant to the letter of the petitioner to the respondent No. 1 dated 8th of March, 1978 and the proposal for Fire Insurance dated 8th of March, 1978 covered the stocks in this cold storage, there is a stipulation by deleting the clause viz., "it is a condition that the insurance Company, shall not be liable for loss and damages which is resulting from a total partial destruction or disbursement by fire refrigerating plant". It is further placed on record that after the flood, the respondent No. 1 appointed the independent Surveyor Messrs. Aston and Avins to survey and assess the damage and/or loss sustained by the petitioner without prejudice to the tights of the insurance. From the surveyor's report, it has to be ascertained and the report with annexures will speak for itself. It is further elaborated that the purported policy was issued by mutual mistake purporting to cover loss or damage, and mainly the respondents have denied the liability by claiming that since the respondent No. 6 Union of India has been expunged from the cause title, the writ petition is not maintainable and the petition may be dismissed accordingly. 3. A lengthy argument was advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents. The attention of the Court has been drawn to the averments made in the writ petition and the affidavit-in-opposition and the affidavit-in-reply. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has specifically drawn the attention of the Court to various provisions of law of insurance and to consider the construction of the policy. Several reported decisions have been cited viz. 1988 (1) CLJ page 316 (Umesh Cold Storage v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd.), AIR 1986 SC page 1527 (Shri Harminder Singh Arora v. Union of India and Ors.) and paragraphs 21, 25 and 27 of AIR 1989 SC page 1642 (M/s. Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay). 1988 (1) CLJ page 316 (Umesh Cold Storage v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd.), AIR 1986 SC page 1527 (Shri Harminder Singh Arora v. Union of India and Ors.) and paragraphs 21, 25 and 27 of AIR 1989 SC page 1642 (M/s. Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay). It is highlighted that the claim of the Policyholder should be understood in the proper perspective and there should be maintenance of register even if the claim is rejected. The attention of the Court has been drawn to section 14 (b) of Insurance Act. There is also reference of paragraphs 12 and 13 of AIR 1990 SC page 1031 (Mahabir Auto Stores and Ors. v. Indian Oil Corporation and Ors.), and 1990(2) CLJ page 137 (Jugal Kanta Pramanik v. State of West Bengal and Ors.). The scope of contract and arbitration clause have also been referred and the attention of the Court has been drawn to 1989(2) CLJ page 252 (Nellimarla Jute Mills Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Jute Corporation of India Ltd. and Anr.) and 1989 (2) Calcutta Law Times page 214 (M/s. S. P. Electronics and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.). There is a reference of 91 CWN page 217 (Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Ors. v. Shyam Sundar Ganeriwala). It is emphasized that there must be communication and there is no question of giving provision by referring AIR 1980 SC page 1037 (M/s. Shiv Shankar Dal Mills etc. v. State of Haryana and Ors.) The main thrust of the argument is that claim of the petitioner has not been considered in the proper perspective and there is no communication to repudiate the claim lodged by the petitioner. 4. THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has mainly argued that the respondents are not the authorities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is not maintainable. He has drawn the attention of the Court to AIR 1985 All. page 183 (Bhashir Kumar Agarwal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.) and to section 4 (b) of the Insurance Act. It is argued that first part is directed and not the second part if the Insurance Company does not repudiate the claim. There is a reference of (1969) 2 SCR page 824 (Tilokchand Motichand and Ors. page 183 (Bhashir Kumar Agarwal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.) and to section 4 (b) of the Insurance Act. It is argued that first part is directed and not the second part if the Insurance Company does not repudiate the claim. There is a reference of (1969) 2 SCR page 824 (Tilokchand Motichand and Ors. v. H. B. Munshi and Anr., AIR 1979 Punj. and Har. page 183 (M. L. Nohria v. THE General Insurance Company of India, Bombay and Ors.; (1984) 2 SCC page 719 (Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Raja Vasiraddy Komalavalli Kamba and Ors.) and AIR 1985 SC page 1265 (Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Smt. Kiren Sinha). Having considered the materials on record in depth and the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties at length, this Court finds that there are valid and subsisting policies covering the claim of the petitioner. Admittedly, there was a flood. Undisputedly, the petitioner has sustained loss and damage. The petitioner has duly communicated their loss and damages. The claims have got to be settled in accordance with law as provided in the Insurance Act and in the manner as covered by several clauses of the policy. The respondents are certainly instrumentalities of the Government and they are certainly the authorities as envisaged under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and they are amenable to writ jurisdiction. Reference may be made to the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in (1990) 3 SCC page 752 (Mahabir Auto Stores and Ors. v. I.O.C. and Ors.) and AIR 1991 SC page 537 (Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi etc. v. State of U.P. and Ors.). There cannot be any doubt that the remedies available for breach of contract by the statutory authorities, the door of the Writ Court is closed. The horizon has been broadened and the respondents cannot be permitted to ask the petitioner to go for alternative remedies by filing a suit. The concept of implied rejection is wholly unwarranted and uncalled for. Upon perusal of the materials on record, this Court is convinced that the claim of the petitioner has not been dealt with in the manner as required under law. No formal communication has been sent to the petitioner after giving an opportunity of hearing and/or by passing any speaking order. Upon perusal of the materials on record, this Court is convinced that the claim of the petitioner has not been dealt with in the manner as required under law. No formal communication has been sent to the petitioner after giving an opportunity of hearing and/or by passing any speaking order. There is also violation of the principles of natural justice in keeping silence over the claim of the petitioner for a long time without ascertaining any reason. 5. FOR the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any bar and/or impediment to grant reliefs to the petitioner in the manner as indicated below. The Rule is made absolute by issuing an appropriate writ commanding the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners within 8 (eight) weeks from the date of communication by giving an opportunity of hearing and by passing a speaking and reasoned order to settle the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.