Judgment :- (1.) IT is not in dispute that since 1998, the proprietorship concern of the petitioner M/s. Biru Courier Service has been entrusted by the West Bengal State electricity Board the duty of delivering energy bills raised on its consumers and allied papers to such consumers. It is further undisputed that lastly an order was passed on 20. 7. 06 extending the period of agreement for one year with effect from 23. 4. 06. Apprehending that the successor of the Board, i. e. the West Bengal state Electricity Distribution Company Limited (hereafter the Company) would not extend the period of validity of the agreement beyond 23. 3. 07, the writ jurisdiction of this Court was invoked by the petitioner by filing the present petition. The main plank of submission on behalf of the petitioner made by Mr. Saha Roy, learned Counsel is that the petitioner has been rendering service for almost 10 years satisfactorily and without any complaint, and there was no good reason for the Company not to revalidate the agreement which was due to expire on 23. 4. 06. Attention of the Court has been drawn to office order dated 20. 7. 06 (Annexure P-5 to the petition) and in particular to clause 11 thereof which provides that the agreement may be terminated if performance of the petitioners concern is found to be unsatisfactory. According to him the petitioner was never informed of any deficiency on the part of his concern in discharge of duty entrusted by the Company and, therefore, the petitioner has a legitimate expectation to have the period of agreement extended for another year, particularly when he had agreed to render service for a further period at the old rate. Accordingly, it was prayed that the Company be directed to renew/extend the period of validity of the agreement for delivery of energy bills and allied papers to its consumers. (2.) MR. Mitra, learned Counsel appearing for the Company invited the attention of this Court to the agreement executed by and between the petitioner and the company on 4. 8. 06, being Annexure R-1 to the petition. (2.) MR. Mitra, learned Counsel appearing for the Company invited the attention of this Court to the agreement executed by and between the petitioner and the company on 4. 8. 06, being Annexure R-1 to the petition. Clause 14 of the agreement reads as follows: " This agreement will remain valid for a period of 1 year w. e. f. 23/04/06 subject to revalidation of the same for further period of one year in each spell based on the satisfactory performances of M/s. Biru courier Service. " By referring to paragraphs 4 (f), (g), (h) and (i) of the counter affidavit filed by the Company, he contended that a number of complaints have been received against the petitioners concern and he was put on notice in respect of such complaints. However, there was no marked improvement in discharge of duty by the petitioners concern. Accordingly, it was decided by the competent authority of the Company not to extend the agreement. Further, after validity of the agreement expired on 22. 4. 07, it was decided to receive bids/offers from interested parties and accordingly requisite notice inviting bids/offers was issued. Three quotations/bids/offers were received on 16. 4. 07 and on consideration thereof, the Company had decided to accept the offer of Ava courier Service and entrusted it with the duty of delivering energy bills of consumers and allied papers to them. According to Mr. Mitra, the petitioner has no legal right to claim renewal/extension of the term of the agreement and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. (3.) IN reply, Mr. Saha Roy invited the attention of the Court to the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner to contend that all the complaints received by the company which were redirected to him were duly attended and suitable replies were sent. The Company even after receipt of the replies entrusted the petitioners concern for further period for delivery of bills and papers and therefore lapse, if at all, stood condoned by the conduct of the Company. Earlier acts of remissness which had been condoned thus could not have formed a valid basis for forming an opinion that performance of the petitioners concern is not satisfactory. He also referred to various documents annexed to the counter affidavit of the Company to contend that the decision to select Ava Courier service is absolutely malafide. Earlier acts of remissness which had been condoned thus could not have formed a valid basis for forming an opinion that performance of the petitioners concern is not satisfactory. He also referred to various documents annexed to the counter affidavit of the Company to contend that the decision to select Ava Courier service is absolutely malafide. No notice inviting offers/bids was issued and it was on a private enquiry made by Ava Courier Service that resulted in its selection. He therefore urged the Court to nullify the selection process and to direct the Company to act in accordance with law by continuing the arrangement with the petitioners concern. This Court has heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. It is true that the petitioners concern had been rendering service to the company for the last 9 years but this, ipso facto, cannot give rise to any legitimate claim that the petitioners concern has to be entrusted with the duty of delivering energy bills and allied papers once again. In order to have further entrustment in terms of the agreement, it was necessary for the petitioner to establish discharge of duty of impeccable character. The materials on record do suggest to the contrary since at times there was room for complaint. May be remedial measures were taken but if performance of the petitioners concern was not found to conform to the standards expected by the Company, it cannot be faulted for taking recourse to a fresh process for selection of an agency for having its work accomplished. It is after all a commercial transaction between the company and the petitioner and unless the parties are ad idem, the Writ Court would not be justified in thrusting any agreement on the parties. There is no valid ground to interdict the satisfaction reached by the Company in relation to unsatisfactory performance of the petitioners concern and the prayer made by mr. Saha Roy for renewal of the term of the agreement cannot be accepted. (4.) THE other submission of Mr. Saha Roy that Ava Courier Service was selected on the basis of private negotiation does not appear to be factually correct. Saha Roy for renewal of the term of the agreement cannot be accepted. (4.) THE other submission of Mr. Saha Roy that Ava Courier Service was selected on the basis of private negotiation does not appear to be factually correct. It appears from the documents at pages 53 and 55 of the counter affidavit of the Company that two of the bidders who were ultimately found unsuccessful had responded to a notice issued by the Company which had been displayed on the notice board. Merely because Ava Courier Service had offered its rate as per verbal enquiry would not enable the Court to hold that clandestinely the Company had proceeded to favour it. Even otherwise, the Company being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is supposed to grant largess upon inviting offers from rivals in trade. That would be in tune with Article 14 thereof. The petitioner had been continuing to render service without being asked to compete with others all these years. In view of the submissions made by Mr. Mitra, learned Counsel appearing for the Company, this Court while reserving judgment had granted liberty to it to float fresh tender for the purpose of inviting bids for delivery of energy bills and allied papers to the consumers for the forthcoming year, with liberty to the petitioner to make an offer. It would therefore be open to the company to proceed in accordance with law for the purpose of selecting a suitable bidder who qualifies in all respects according to its requirement and to take follow-up steps, also according to law. For reasons aforesaid, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition stands dismissed. (5.) THERE shall be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the applicant within 4 days from date of putting in requisites therefor.