The High Court cannot entertain writ petitions challenging awards of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council without the mandatory deposit of 75% of the awarded amount as per Section 19 of the MSMED Act.

COMMON ORDER:

K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order.

2. All the writ petitions have been filed assailing the orders passed by A.P. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council-1^st respondent dated 11.11.2011 in Case Nos.180/04, 38/07 and 39/07. In view of the above order, the 1^st respondent Council directed the writ petitioners to pay the amounts to the 2^nd respondent in the writ petitions towards goods said to have been supplied to the writ petitioners and interest.

3. Since the facts in all the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore WP No.2771 of 2013 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience.

4. Brief facts of the case are that, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board came into being and has remained the energy provider and distributor. It got restructured itself into TNSEB. For the purpose of generation of Electricity, it had established generation plants throughout the State of Tamil Nadu. It is stated that 1^st respondent-Council constituted under the provisions of the erstwhile repealed The Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industries Undertaking Act, 1993. The Petitioner has issued tender notifications for supply of ACSR/AAA Conductors, i.e., All Aluminum Alloy Conductor and accordingly, issued Purchase Order The tender bid submitted by the Respondent No.2 had been accepted by the Petitioner and various Purchase Orders were placed by the Petitioner with specific terms and conditions stipulated therein. The Petitioner having purchased the goods under various purchase orders from R-2 and had paid the entire amount of the goods. It is further stated that all the bills raised by 2^nd respondent have been duly cleared by the Petitioner from time to time after deducting the discounts as per the mutually agreed terms of the contract. It is further stated that the 2^nd respondent has resorted to prefer reference in Form - I claiming the entire value of the purchase orders amounting to Rs.71,39,442-06 contending that the Petitioner has illegally deducted the subsidies/liquidated damages though all the transactions were between 29/12/1997 and 31/10/2000 and 1^st respondent has entertained the claims of the 2^nd respondent. Upon receipt of notices from R-1 Council, the Petitioner filed its Counter Statement. Without considering the same R-1 Council passed impugned order directing the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.14,17,823/- towards Principal and Rs.57,21,619/- as interest totaling to Rs.71,39,442/- as on 30/06/2004, being the price of goods supplied to the Respondent together with interest due from 12/02/1998 to 30/06/2004. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.

5. The pleadings which are cited in WP No.2771 of 2013 the same are adopted in other writ petitions vide WP No.2778 and 2779 of 2013.

6. This Court, vide order dated 31.01.2013, while issuing Rule Nisi, has granted interim direction, which reads as under:

WP MP No.3419 of 2013

A perusal of the order challenged in the writ petition discloses that the A.P. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.70,32,070/- towards principal and Rs.32,19,193/- towards interest. However, in the claim petition, the relief sought for by the 2nd respondent is only as regards the interest on account of delayed payments. The matter needs to be examined.

There shall be interim stay as prayed for.

7. The counter affidavit has been filed in WP No.2771 of 2013 and the same are adopted by the 2^nd respondent in all other writ petitions. While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 was legislated with a intent to save the small enterprises from the teeth of financial crisis and to ensure their survival and competitiven