IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24717 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THE PAYANGADI VANITHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO. C. 1651, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SAFAS COMPLEX, KOTTAMBRAM.P.O, MADAYI. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL COMPLEX AND CENTRE FOR ADVANCED MEDICAL SERVICES LTD., NO.4386, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. R1 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN R2 BY ADV.SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.24717 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Going by Ext.P1, the petitioner, a Vanitha Co-operative Society, was entrusted the cleaning and allied activities of the premises of the hospital run by the second respondent. The term of the contract commenced on 1.1.2008. It appears that different reports were placed by the Nursing Superintendent, the Supervisory Nurse and by the Deputy Medical Superintendent stating that the cleaning activities are far below the required bench mark. Following that, going by Ext.P1, on 12.5.2008, the petitioner was asked to show cause. The petitioner submitted a reply on 20.5.2008. Following that, a further report was obtained on 24.6.2008 and on the basis of that, the executive committee of the second respondent decided to terminate the contract with the petitioner. In the aforesaid scenario, I do not find it reasonable to entertain any plea by the petitioner that the action taken is without jurisdiction or that it requires interference by this Court. The petitioner is a co- WPC.24717/08 Page numbers operative society. The second respondent is also a co-operative society. Any disputes between them fall under the purview of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Therefore, it may not be reasonable to direct the first respondent Registrar to exercise power under Rule 176 of the KCS Act, particularly when the dispute, in its essence, is a controversy in relation to a contract between two co-operative societies. Hence, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner, if any, to take recourse to the provisions of Section 69 of the KCS Act, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.18/8.