IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 33167 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- B.JAYACHANDRAN, 'CHANDANAM', MARKET ROAD, ATTINGAL-695101. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PALODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.792, PALODE, KARIMANCODE.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 562, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 3. THE SECRETARY, THE PALODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.792, PALODE, KARIMANCODE.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695562. 4. PUSPANGADHAN, MINI BHAVAN. MADATHARA, MADATHARA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SR.GOVT. PLEADER K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.33167 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 19th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The 2nd respondent bank invited tenders for the construction of a new building. The petitioner and others submitted tenders. The petitioner was the lowest bidder. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent invited the petitioner and the 4th respondent for negotiation for reducing the rates. According to the petitioner, he expressed his willingness to reduce the rate by 0.2% from the quoted rate, but the 4th respondent intimated, by Ext.P4, that he cannot reduce the rate quoted by him. Thereafter, the petitioner was surprised to find that the 3rd respondent decided to award the contract to the 4th respondent since he had agreed to do the work at 1.9 per cent below the quoted rate. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent had not invited the parties for a fresh negotiation. Therefore, the decision to award the contract to the 4th respondent behind the back fo the petitioner is clearly unsustainable is his contention. The petitioner, therefore, challenges the said decision. 2. I directed the counsel for the petitioner to satisfy me that the writ petition is maintainable in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court to the effect that a writ petition against a co-operative society would be maintainable only in respect of any violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules. The petitioner submits that under Sections 66 and 66A of the Kerala Co-operatives Societies Act, the Registrar has supervisory power and, therefore, this Court can exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the Registrar to take appropriate action in the 2 matter. I am not satisfied that the Registrar has power under Sections 66 and 66A of the Act to interfere with contractual matters between a co- operative society and a tenderer who responds to a tender notification issued by the society in so far as the same does not involve compliance with any provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. In such circumstances, the remedy of the petitioner lies in either filing an arbitration case under Section 69 or if a petition would not lie under Section 69, to file a suit. The petitioner would contend that under Section 100 of the Act suit is barred. I am of opinion that if suit is barred, then certainly Section 69 would apply. If Section 69 would apply, there is no bar since bar under Section 100 is only in cases where provision is made in the Act. In the above circumstances, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file either an arbitration case under Section 69 or a suit, this writ petition is dismissed. However, I direct that the award of contract be kept in abeyance for a period of 10 days to enable the petitioner to seek alternate remedies. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge