IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 30740 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ANGADIPURAM PANCHAYATH VANITHA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD.NO.M.583, THIRURKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 351, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE BEWERAGES (M & M) CORPORATION LTD., SASTHAKRIPA OFFICE COMPLEX, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE MANAGER, KERALA STATE BEWERAGES(M & M)CORPORATION LTD., FL-9, WAREHOUSE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. SRI.C.S.AITH PRAKASH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.30740/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT DTD.25.6.08. EXT.P2 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD.30.5.2011. EXT.P3 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY REQUEST DTD.27.10.2011. EXT.P4 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DTD.31.10.2011. EXT.P5 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE. EXT.P6 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6(a): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 30740 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 18th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Co-operative Society. The society has entered into a contract with the 2nd respondent for fixing labels on bottles and the rate agreed to between the parties was `3.50 for 100 bottles. The contract period was initially for a period of three years and on expiry thereof, at the request of the petitioner, it was extended and the extended period is expiring on 30th of November, 2011. Meanwhile, petitioner sought further extension of the contract and the matter has not been decided by the respondents. At that stage, respondents has now invited tenders fixing the rate at `8 per 100 bottles. It is at that stage the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner contending that their representation for extension of contract period is pending and that the revision of rates now offered is irrational and loss making. 2. Having considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the contentions of the learned standing counsel for the respondents, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. WPC No. 30740/11 :2 : 3. First of all, petitioner themselves say that the existing rate is low. If that be so, the inadequacy of the rate is accepted by the petitioner and that justifies enhancement of rates by the Corporation, which also is its prerogative. 4. In so far as the request of the petitioner for extension of contract is concerned, the parties are governed by a contract and rates and obligations are those mentioned in the contract. The contract does not confer any right for the petitioner to seek extension of time. If that be so, in the absence of any legal right, petitioner cannot say that their representation is liable to be entertained and that during the pendency of the representation, the respondents cannot proceed to invite fresh tenders. In such circumstances, I see no justification to entertain the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge