JUDGMENT : V.G. ARUN, J. 1. The 1 st petitioner is a co-operative society registered and functioning in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The 1 st respondent, another co-operative society, had invited tenders for the construction of its head office building and ancillary works as per Ext.P1 tender notification. The 1 st petitioner participated in the tender and quoted the second lowest rate and the 3 rd respondent the lowest. The difference between the rates quoted by the 1 st petitioner and the 3 rd respondent was 7.16%. The President of the 1 st petitioner Society therefore submitted Ext.P8 letter, requesting to award the work to the 1 st petitioner by granting the price preference available to Labour Contract Co-operative Societies. In the absence of any positive response to the request and apprehending that the work will be awarded to the 3 rd respondent, the writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “a. To declare that the petitioners are eligible to be awarded the work in furtherance to Exhibit P1 tender notification in the light of Exhibits P2 to P6 Government orders and as the difference between the rates quoted between the 3 rd respondent and the petitioners is only 7.16%. b. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents 1 and 2 to award the work in furtherance to Exhibit P1 tender notification to the petitioners in the light of Exhibits P2 to P6 Government orders.” 2. Heard, Advs. D. Kishore for the petitioners and J. Jayakumar for respondents 1 and 2. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Ext.P2 Government Order to point out that, the Labour Contract Co-operative Societies in the State are entitled to price preference of 10% above the lowest tenderer, in case the lowest tenderer is a private contractor. It is pointed out that the preferences/exemptions granted to Labour Contract Co-operative Societies have been extended to the 1 st petitioner as per Ext.P3 Government Order. Attention is also drawn to Ext.P6 Government Order by which the preferences/exemptions are made applicable to the award of tenders by Co-operative Societies also. It is hence contended that in view of Exts.P2, P3 and P6 Government Orders, the tender notified by Ext.P1 ought to have been awarded to the 1 st petitioner. 4. Attention is also drawn to Ext.P6 Government Order by which the preferences/exemptions are made applicable to the award of tenders by Co-operative Societies also. It is hence contended that in view of Exts.P2, P3 and P6 Government Orders, the tender notified by Ext.P1 ought to have been awarded to the 1 st petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the 1 st petitioner is a Building Consultant and Technological Service Co-operative Society falling within the miscellaneous category and is therefore not entitled for the benefits available to Labour Contract Co-operative Societies. Even otherwise, Exts.P2 and P3 orders, obtained under political influence, are not applicable to the 1 st respondent Society. Moreover, if construction of buildings is one of the objects of the 1 st petitioner Society, refusal to award the contract amounts to a dispute touching upon the business of the society, which can be resolved only by resorting to the remedy of arbitration provided under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. It is hence contended that in view of the efficacious alternative remedy, the writ petition should be dismissed as not maintainable. 5. The Bye-law of the 1 st petitioner Co-operative Society produced as Ext.R1(d) does not declare construction of buildings as one of its objectives. Even then the Government deemed it fit to extend the benefits available to Labour Contract Co-operative Societies to the 1 st petitioner. In this context, it is pertinent to note that as per Ext.P2 Government Order, benefits, including price preference, were granted to the Labour Contract Co-operative Societies only in the award of Government works and those benefits alone were extended to the 1 st petitioner society as per Ext.P3. Therefore, the benefit of price preference will be available to the 1 st petitioner only in the award of Governmental works. Although, by virtue of Ext.P6, the Labour Contract Co-operative Societies became entitled to price preference in the award of works by Co- operative Societies also, that benefit is not extended to the 1 st petitioner society. Being so, the 1 st petitioner cannot claim price preference in the award of work notified by the 1 st respondent society. That being the position, the question whether the dispute raised in this writ petition is one touching upon the business of the society is irrelevant. 6. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.