Jayakumar vs. Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies

JUDGMENT 1.This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- i)issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to award the work tendered as per Ext.P1 tender notification to the petitioner at 16.3% less of the estimated amount with a further direction to the 1st respondent to ensure the same: ii)issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 petition on merits forthwith.” 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 3.It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in response to an invitation of tender for the construction of a building for the 2nd respondent Co-operative Society , the petitioner was the lowest tenderer. However, the work was awarded to the 3rd respondent Labour Co-operative Society at much higher rates which is under challenge. Though Exhibit P3 representation was preferred by the petitioner before the 1st respondent, it remains unattended. It is contended that Exhibit P4 Government Order providing preferential benefits to co-operative societies has been misread by the 2nd respondent to award the work to the 3rd respondent. 4.A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent contending that the writ petition seeking award of work to the petitioner is not maintainable as directions sought are against a Co-operative Society exercising its discretion in the matter of award of work. It is contended that the 3rd respondent had quoted third lowest and since L1 was a private contractor, the 3rd respondent had agreed to do the work at L1 plus 10% and the work was duly awarded. 5.The 3rd respondent has also filed a counter affidavit contending that Exhibit P4 provides for award of work in favour of Labour Contract Societies and since the petitioner is the only Labour Contract Society which responded to Exhibit P1 tender, the award of the work was perfectly legal and valid. It is contended that the petitioner was unable to complete many works undertaken by him and this poor track record also resulted in the 2nd respondent preferring the 3rd respondent. 6.I have considered the contentions advanced. Exhibit P4 admittedly provides for price preference and other benefits in favour of Labour Contract Societies in the award of Government works. The 2nd respondent Co-operative Society had invited tenders for construction of a building and the petitioner responded. The 3rd respondent, which was the only Labour Contract Co-operative Society which had participated in the tender was awarded the work at the rates quoted by it which was lower than L1 plus 10%. The 2nd respondent contends that the provisions of Exhibit P4 has been taken note of by the 2nd respondent while awarding the work. 7.The 2nd respondent is a Cooperative Society. The matter of award of contract by a co-operative society for the construction of a building by it is necessarily an issue touching the administration of the society. Though it is true that in cases where statutory provisions govern the functioning of a primary co-operative society or where a public duty is owed by the society, the writ juri iction of this Court would be available at the instance of an aggrieved person, in a case where what is under challenge is the award of the contract by the society simplicitor, I am of the opinion that no such writ would lie against the society. Award of work by a co-operative society is not a matter which falls within the ambit of writ juri iction of this Court. Even if such a question is available for consideration, the award of the work to the 3rd respondent Labour Contract Co-operative Society is well supported by the provisions of Exhibit P4 and the discretionary exercise of juri iction of this Court would be unwarranted. The challenge raised in the writ petition therefore fails. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Anu Sivaraman, Judge

sj APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 22.4.2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPIES OF THE RECEIPT FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE EARNEST MONEY DEPOSIT, TENDER FORM COST AND GST. EXHIBIT P3OF THE PETITION DATED 31.5.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4OF THE G.O (MS) NO.135/97/CO- O DATED 13.11.1997. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R3 AOF THE MAJOR WORKS UNDERTAKEN BY IT FROM 2011 TO 2018 EXHIBIT R3 B TRUE OF SOME OF THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE ASWRDEES OF THE CONTRACT. EXHIBIT R3 COF THE LICENCE. EXHIBIT R3 DOF THE CERTIFICATE OF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THRISSUR.PS to Judge