IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27491 of 2008(W) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------ VAHEEDA, W/O.KUNHIMUHAMMED, KALLINGAL HOUSE, POST NIRAMARUTHUR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGIONAL AGRO-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE OF KERALA LIMITED (RAIDCO-KERALA LTD) HEAD OFFICE, POST KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE REGIONAL AGRO-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE OF KERALA LIMITED (RAIDCO-KERALA LTD) TIRUR BRANCH OFFICE, POST TIRUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.27491 OF 2008 (W) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner and the first respondent co-operative society entered into a commercial transaction in relation to the purchase of a coconut drying machine. The materials on record show that there were demands, refusals, counter demands, counter refusals etc. even regarding the payment of consideration for the machine. Pending all that, the petitioner wrote to the respondents alleging that the machine supplied to her did not perform as offered and that the total number of coconuts dried by utilising the machine is much below the advertised quantity. She accordingly, as stated in Ext.P6, claims entitled to return the price money and for payment of compensation, including by way of cost of damaged coconut, which, she alleges, were sold at half the price. This writ petition is filed for a direction to consider and dispose of that representation. W.P.(C) No.27491/2008 - 2 - 2. A direction in the nature of mandamus to dispose of a representation is not an empty formality. Cautious exercise of such jurisdiction is a requisite component in the exercise of the extra-ordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I wonder what would be the result, if I direct the consideration of Ext.P6. If the demands in Ext.P6 are not accepted, all that it could be, is to be treated as denial or refusal. That may be a cause of action for a litigation. Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 provides a very vide arena for adjudication of disputes between the parties who enter into transactions with co-operative societies. When such comprehensive measures are available, I find it unnecessary to compel the respondents to state their decision on Ext.P6. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed, without entering on the merits of the claims of either the petitioner or the respondents, as between them. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE skr/17/9 // True copy // P.A. to Judge.