B.Jayachandran vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 19 November, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 33167 of 2009(M)


1. B.JAYACHANDRAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE PALODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK

3. THE SECRETARY,

4. PUSPANGADHAN, MINI BHAVAN.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.D.KISHORE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :19/11/2009

 O R D E R
                                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