AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Jyothimani, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondents.
The writ Petitioner is stated to be a member of the first Respondent society which has been started for many objects including to produce or
receive for sale the beehive products from members and non members and sell them to the best advantage and for other purposes.
The challenge in the writ petition is the notification issued by the first Respondent in the newspaper dated 17.07.2009 and 11.09.2009 by the
first Respondent society calling for the persons to get contract for the supply of beehives. The main grievance of the Petitioner is that as per the bye
law governing the first Respondent society, the purchase has to be done only from the members of the society. While so the first Respondent has
gone to the third parties which is against the interest of the society and the purchase through the third parties also should be directed through the
members as per the bye laws.
Mr. Pala. Ramasamy, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that pursuant to the said notification especially, the second notification
dated 11.09.2009published in the year newspaper 11.02.2009, the contract has been awarded to one Mr. Stephen on 30.09.2009. Therefore,
the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this regard as on date. In the circumstance that the contract has already been awarded pursuant to the
impugned notice issued by the first Respondent and in the absence of interim order against such award of the contract, the third parties interest has
involved and therefore, as on date, the impugned notification does not survive. If the Petitioner is affected by the contract which is stated tobe
against bye laws, it is for him to work out his remedy in the manner known to law against such grant of contractto the third parties.
In such view of the matter, in my considered view, the prayer in the writ petition has become in fructuous and therefore, the Petitioner is not
entitled for the relief claimed in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to
work out his remedy, if he is aggrieved by the contract stated to have been granted to the third parties as early as on 30.09.2009. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.