1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the action of the first respondent, the Co-operative Arbitration Court, Kozhikode, declaring them ex parte in ARC 24/13. They lament that the Co-operative Arbitration Court has no power to set aside the order declaring them ex parte. Therefore, they have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution.

2. The petitioners are elected members of the Board of Directors of the Thekkumkutty Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangham, the third respondent herein. An election was conducted to the Board of Directors of the Society on 27.3.2013 in which, the petitioners were elected. The fifth respondent is a candidate who was defeated at the election. The fourth respondent is a person who had challenged election notification itself before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed, reserving his liberty to challenge the election. Respondents 4 and 5 have filed ARC 24/2013 which is pending before the first respondent. The petitioners are respondents in the said case along with the third respondent. In the ARC, the third respondent was served with notice and the society entered appearance through counsel. However, the petitioners have not been served with any notice in the said proceedings. The date of appearance was 21.5.2013. On that date, the matter was adjourned to 14.6.2013, since there was no sitting. On the said date, it is alleged that, the following order was passed by the Arbitration Court:-

“Plaintiff represented by counsel. Summons D1 to D9 returned. D10 filed vakalath. D11 absent. D1 to D9 returned stating that the address is not shown proper. Hence returned. D1 to D9 set ex parte. Adjourned to 28.6.2013.”

3. According to Adv. P.C.Sasidharan who appears for the petitioners, despite noticing that summons D1 to D9 was returned stating that “the address is not shown proper”, the petitioners were set ex parte. Though the petitioners have submitted Ext.P2, an application for the issue of a copy of the said proceedings, it is alleged that no copy has been issued to them so far. It is contended that the petitioners are not in a position to file a petition for setting aside the order declaring them ex parte, for the reason that the Arbitration Court has no power to grant the said relief. It is also contended that the relevant rule confers power on the first respondent to declare a person ex parte only in cases where summons has been duly served. Therefore, the exercise of power in the present case is absolutely without jurisdiction and liable to be corrected by this Court.

4. According to the Govt. Pleader who appears for respondents 1 and 2, this writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that the remedy of the petitioners is to approach the Arbitration Court itself for setting aside the order declaring them ex parte. A Court that is conferred with the power to declare a person ex parte also has the power to decide whether such an order should be set aside or not. It is contended that the first respondent being a Tribunal has the power to decide disputes, which includes the power to pass all orders that are necessary to do substantial justice between the parties. Therefore, to confine the jurisdiction of the first respondent only to the powers that are enumerated, is fallacious, it is contended. Decisions of this Court have also been relied upon by the learned Govt. Pleader to substantiate his contention that the Arbitration Court has sufficient powers to grant the relief that the petitioners have sought for in this writ petition. It is therefore contended that this writ petition is only to be dismissed.

5. This writ petition had come up before me for admission on 26.6.2013, on which date the Govt. Pleader was directed to take instructions as to whether notice had been served on the petitioners. If not, he was directed to produce the records on the basis of which the order to proceed ex parte was issued. Since the ARC was posted on 28.6.2