IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36484 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.P.KESHAVADEV, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.MADAWAN NAMBOOTHIRI, PWD CONTRACTOR, SUHASHIDAM HOUSE, POST KONGAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.NAVAS SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA SRI.SHAJI SAMAD.P.A SRI.SIMI.C.SIVASANKAR SRI.T.K.SASIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, THE OTTAPPALAM CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED NO.P526, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 2. THE PRESIDENT, THE OTTAPPALAM CO- OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED NO.P526, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. JAYAN, CIVIL CONTRACTOR, SPAN CONSTRUCTIONS, CHERUPLASSERY ROAD, OTTAPPALAM PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADDL.4. BABU C.J., AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.C.P.JOSEPH CHEMBAKOTTU HOUSE, POST PAYAYANNOOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. K.GEORGE, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.K.KURIAKOSE, KOTTALLIL HOUSE, THOTTAKKAR P.O., OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1, R2 BY SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI R3 BY ADV.SMT.SMITHA GEORGE ADDL.R4, R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.36484/09 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SCHEDULE RECEIPT NO.65175 DATED 20.10.09. EXT.P2: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TENDER APPLICATION NO.NI. DATED SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER NO.NI. DATED 5.11.2009ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE STRUCTURAL PLAN NO.NIL DATED NIL ISSUED BY THESTRUCTURAL ENGINEER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF WORKS EXECUTED BY R3. EXT.R3(b): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2009 ISSUED TO R3 BY R1 SOCIETY. EXT.R3(c): TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 28.11.2009 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN R3 AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT SOCIETY. EXT.R4(A): PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TENDER APPLICATION NO.NIL DATED 31.10.09. EXT.R4(B): PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER NO.NIL DATED 5.11.09 ISSUED BY THE1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(C): PHOTOSTAT COPY OF the TENDER APPLICATION NO.NIL DATED NIL. EXT.R4(D): PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER NO.10/09-10 DATED 14.10.09. EXTG.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING HELD ON 17.11.09. EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.11.09 ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE BOARD. EXT.R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 28.11.09 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE SOCIETY AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.36484 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Respondents 1 and 2 are the secretary and president of a co-operative marketing society. That society invited competitive tenders for a civil contract. The petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 competed. The third respondent was the highest bidder, according to the petitioner. Respondents 4 and 5, who were impleaded at their instance, quoted lower to the third respondent. The petitioner had quoted the lowest. Based on this premise, this writ petition is filed challenging award of contract to the third respondent. This writ petition, though admitted on 18.12.2009, remains without any interim order in favour of the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 have specifically contended that the writ petition in relation to a co-operative society's affairs in the realm of contracts is not maintainable. This plea in paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit of respondents 1 and 2, in my view, WPC.36484/09 2 deserves acceptance. The co-operative society is not an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, against which, a writ petition would lie under Article 226, as has been laid down by this Court earlier. Commercial matters, including contracts for construction of buildings, do not generate any ground to interfere even by treating the society as one dealing with funds made available by the State or Central Government. As pointed out by the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, even if the petitioner has any grievance as a private individual, against the society, the avenue would be elsewhere in terms of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. In the aforesaid premise, I do not deem it appropriate to express further touching the merits of the matter since that would only prevent the parties from seeking relief elsewhere, if available, in accordance with law. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.6/08.