IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 11253 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.KRAFTWORK SOLAR PVT.LTD., ADITHYA, 29/2862, NEAR GANDHI SQUARE, POONITHURA, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.NEELAKANTA IYER, S/O.KULATHU IYER, AGED 59 YEARS. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCER'S UNION LTD, KSHEERA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE REGISTRAR, DIRECTORATE OF DIARY DEVELOPMENT, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. THE CHIEF MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. R1, R3 BY GOVT. PELADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR R2 BY ADV.SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN SRI.K.ANAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.11253 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a supplier of goods to the second respondent. It supplied certain solar heating equipment and had installed it in the premises of the second respondent. The second respondent is amenable to the jurisdiction under Sections 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. On account of certain disputes that have arisen between the petitioner and the second respondent, the petitioner has filed an arbitration case before the third respondent. It is stated that the incumbent in office of the third respondent has demitted office on superannuation. Obviously, there should be a person who is put in charge of that office. Any application for interim relief in an arbitration case has necessarily to be considered by that officer. Not only that, the relief sought for by the petitioner is relevant to the invocation of a bank guarantee by the second respondent which is stated to be covering 10% of WPC.11253/09 Page numbers the total price in relation to the transaction between the parties. That is a matter on which the writ court need not have to interfere. It has, however, to be ensured that the officer in charge of the office of the Registrar/Director, before whom ARC.1/09 between the petitioner and the second respondent is pending, has to take up such matter forthwith for consideration of any request for interim relief. Let this be done on production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.7/4.