Judgment : Seeking quashing of Notice Inviting Tender issued by the Jharkhand State Tribal Cooperative Development Corporation Limited (JSTCDC) published in daily newspaper “Prabhat Khabar” on 13.02.2014, the present writ petition has been filed. A further prayer for issuing direction to the Principal Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand to hand over the MESO Rural Hospitals to the petitioners, has also been made in the writ petition. 2. The brief facts stated in the writ petition are that, the petitioner no. 1 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and the petitioner no. 2 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. Both the petitioners are registered as Non-Governmental Organisation with the State of Jharkhand and are involved in various activities of social welfare. Under the MESO project, the State of Jharkhand decided to construct 14 Hospitals in Rural areas in different districts of Jharkhand and a decision was taken to outsource the operation and function of the MESO Rural Hospitals by entrusting the same to the Non-Governmental Organisations, Private Organisations and Corporate Organisations through an open tender. Accordingly, an advertisement was issued inviting Expression of Interest from various organisations. The petitioners along with other organisations submitted their Expression of Interest, after which the briefing session was held on 25.03.2006, and all the tenderers gave their presentation on 04.04.2006 and 05.04.2006 before the committee constituted for selecting the organisation for running the 14 MESO Rural Hospitals. The petitioners were informed vide communication dated 16.10.2007 that they have been selected for running 50bedded MESO Rural Hospitals. A draft MOU was handed over to the petitioners and they were called for a meeting with the Tribal Welfare Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi. Since only 9 MESO Hospitals out of 14 Hospitals were complete, the Memorandum of Understanding was signed with the successful tenderers with respect to 9 Hospitals only. Both the petitioners signed MOUs with respect to 2 MESO Hospitals each and they are successfully operating those hospitals by deploying Doctors, Para Medical Staff and other Staff. After several communications from the Tribal Welfare Commissioner, Jharkhand, letter dated 08.01.2013 was issued whereby it was decided to hand over 5 remaining MESO Rural Hospitals to the petitioners. Both the petitioners signed MOUs with respect to 2 MESO Hospitals each and they are successfully operating those hospitals by deploying Doctors, Para Medical Staff and other Staff. After several communications from the Tribal Welfare Commissioner, Jharkhand, letter dated 08.01.2013 was issued whereby it was decided to hand over 5 remaining MESO Rural Hospitals to the petitioners. A draft Memorandum of Understanding was also forwarded to the petitioners with a direction to the Tribal Welfare Commissioner for executing the MOU however, when MOU was not signed, the petitioners made representations on 22.01.2013 and 18.02.2013 for signing MOUs and release of grantinaid. Suddenly, on 13.02.2014, JSTCDC issued an advertisement in the daily newspaper “Prabhat Khabar” inviting proposals from Private Sector Operators for operation, maintenance and management of 5 MESO Rural Hospitals with respect to which a decision was already taken to hand over the same to the petitioners. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5 stating that, the process of selection of suitable operators for running MESO Rural Hospitals vide advertisement no. 12512 (Welfare)/0506 came to an end with allocation of 9 hospitals. With respect to other 5 hospitals which were under construction, a fresh process for selection has been initiated by issuing advertisement dated 13.02.2014. A right to function as operator of the MESO Hospital would accrue only after signing of MOU and, as no Memorandum of Understanding has been signed with the petitioners with respect to newly constructed MESO Hospitals, those hospitals cannot be handed over to the petitioners. With respect to communications dated 03.05.2011, 21.09.2011, 21.03.2012 and 08.01.2013, it is stated that these are departmental communications which cannot be enforced against the respondents. The Tribal Welfare Commissioner vide letter dated 10.01.2013 requested the Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand to review the matter because it related to the year, 200607. The petitioners have already participated in the tender process and they have attended the prebid meeting on 24.02.2014. 4. In a separate counter-affidavit, the respondent no. 2 has stated that the Jharkhand State Tribal Cooperative Development Corporation Limited (JSTCDC) is a Government Corporation under the Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand. The petitioners have already participated in the tender process and they have attended the prebid meeting on 24.02.2014. 4. In a separate counter-affidavit, the respondent no. 2 has stated that the Jharkhand State Tribal Cooperative Development Corporation Limited (JSTCDC) is a Government Corporation under the Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand. The Department of Welfare executes various welfare schemes of the State Government through (1) Tribal Welfare Commissioner, Ranchi, (2) Jharkhand State Schedule Caste Cooperative Development Corporation Limited, (3) Jharkhand State Tribal Cooperative Development Corporation Limited, (4) Jharkhand State Other Backward Classes Cooperative Development Corporation Limited and (5) Jharkhand State Minority Finance Corporation Limited. A decision was taken on 03.01.2014 with respect to 5 newly constructed MESO Rural Hospitals in the review meeting of the Hon'ble the Chief Minister who is also the Minister for Department of Welfare and accordingly, the advertisement was issued for selection of operator for running the MESO Rural Hospitals. Further affidavits/rejoinder affidavits have been filed on behalf of the parties. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Mr. A. K. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that, once a draft MOU was handed over to the petitioners and the petitioners expressed their willingness to accept the terms and conditions contained in MOU, the respondents are under a duty to execute the Memorandum of Understanding and hand over the newly constructed MESO Rural Hospitals to the petitioners for operating the same. It is submitted that, the MOUs were duly vetted by the Department of Law and at the instruction of the Secretary, Department of Welfare the same was forwarded to the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter, mobilised resources and made necessary arrangements for executing the work under the MOU and therefore, the respondents are estopped from refusing to sign MOUs with the petitioners. 7. As against the above, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned G.P. V reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submitted that, no right has accrued in favour of the petitioners and there is no promissory estoppel against the respondent State of Jharkhand. The petitioners have already participated in the tender process which was issued on 13.02.2014. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 9. The petitioners have already participated in the tender process which was issued on 13.02.2014. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 9. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioners advanced argument on promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, I am of the opinion that the main issue involved in the present writ petition is, what is the legal right in the petitioners which has been infringed by the respondent nos. 7 and 8 by issuing Notice Inviting Tender vide advertisement dated 13.02.2014 ? The petitioners have contended that a draft Memorandum of Understanding duly vetted by the Law Department was forwarded to them, to which the petitioners communicated their consent for signing the same and thus, a right has accrued in favour of the petitioners. It is an admitted position that no Memorandum of Understanding was signed with the petitioners. Merely because a draft Memorandum of Understanding was forwarded to the petitioners, it cannot be said to have resulted in a concluded contract. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, an agreement can be oral also and therefore, once the draft MOU was forwarded to the petitioners and the petitioners communicated their intention to accept the same, the contract is complete and it is enforceable in law. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is liable to be rejected. In Government contracts, there is no concept of oral agreement. The respondents have specifically asserted that pursuant to the review meeting held with the Chief Minister, the Notice Inviting Tender was published on 13.02.2014. The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised a plea that the respondent nos. 7 and 8 has no jurisdiction to issue advertisement with respect to a property which does not belong to it. I find that in the writ petition itself, the petitioners have relied on various communications of Tribal Welfare Commissioner. It has been brought on record that the Tribal Welfare Commissioner along with the Jharkhand State Tribal Cooperative Development Corporation Limited respondent no. 7 work as agency of the Department of Welfare. The petitioners have thus admitted that they were communicating with an agency of the Welfare Department. The respondents have asserted that the respondent no. 7 was entrusted to issue Notice Inviting Tender. 7 work as agency of the Department of Welfare. The petitioners have thus admitted that they were communicating with an agency of the Welfare Department. The respondents have asserted that the respondent no. 7 was entrusted to issue Notice Inviting Tender. Moreover, I am of the opinion that it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the jurisdiction of respondent no. 7 to issue Notice Inviting Tender vide advertisement dated 13.02.2014. The Secretary, Department of Welfare has though filed counter-affidavit in the present proceeding, he has not raised any objection to the advertisement dated 13.02.2014 issued by the respondent no. 7 rather, the said advertisement has been approved by the respondent State of Jharkhand. I am of the opinion that no enforceable legal right has accrued in favour of the petitioners for seeking mandamus to the respondents for executing MOUs, and for handing over the operation and management of newly constructed MESO Rural Hospitals. In view of the decision taken by the State of Jharkhand to issue fresh NIT, I do not find force in the challenge to the Notice Inviting Tender issued vide advertisement dated 13.02.2014. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioners advanced arguments on the issue of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, in view of the fact that the petitioners have failed to establish existence of a legal right in them and a corresponding duty in the respondents which the respondents have failed to discharge, I do not find it necessary to record the argument of the petitioners on these issues. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.