RANJIT MORE, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and, by consent, the petition is heard finally.

2. Heard Mr. Kane, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Oak, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Vanarse, learned AGP for the State.

3. By invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs:

(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for records and proceedings of the impugned order dated 29th April 2015 passed by Respondent No. 1 in Petition No. 39A/2011 before Respondent No. 1 (Exhibit-E to the Petition) and after going through the legality, validity and propriety thereof, be pleased to quash and set aside the same.

(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of prohibition or a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction prohibiting Respondent No. 1 from exercising any further jurisdiction over the MSME Reference and specifically prohibiting Respondent No. 1 from entering upon arbitration in the Petition No. 39A/2011 before Respondent No. 1.

(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No. 1 to refer the disputes between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 forming subject matter of Petition No. 39A/2011 before Respondent No. 1 to an independent arbitration in terms of Clause 14 of the said Purchase Order (annexed and marked as Exhibit A to the Petition).

4. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:

The petitioner floated a tender for supply, installation, construction, testing, commissioning and development of Fire Fighting System at the petitioner's gas receiving station in June, 2007. Several bidders including respondent No. 3 participated in the tender process and upon evaluation of the bids, respondent No. 3 was declared by the petitioner to be a successful bidder.

On 18th July, 2007, in pursuance of the said tender, the purchase order, came to be issued to respondent No. 3 by the petitioner. Clause 14 of the said purchase order contained arbitration clause.

There was dispute between the parties regarding completion of tender work, quality of work and the payment of money for the tender work as agreed under the said purchase order. Respondent No. 3 thereafter approached respondent No. 1-Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (for short “MSEFC”) by making MSME reference seeking compensation of Rs. 36,60,054.64 paise from the petitioner and served copy of the same upon the petitioner on 14th October, 2011. The petitioner, by filing reply to this reference application on 17th November, 2011 and 19th February, 2015, inter-alia raised a preliminary objection that respondent No. 1-MSEFC has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the said reference. The objection was taken on the ground that the parties have clearly and unequivocally agreed for an independent arbitration agreement in the said purchase order.

By an order dated 29th April, 2015, respondent No. 1-MSEFC terminated the conciliation proceedings as unsuccessful due to lack of interest of the petitioner for conciliation and amicable settlement and decided to itself initiate arbitration proceedings. This order is impugned in the present petition.

5. In short, the petitioner is questioning the jurisdiction of respondent No. 1-MSEFC in entertaining the reference under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ( for short “the MSMED Act”) in a dispute which has arisen between the petitioner as a buyer of goods from respondent No. 3 as seller.

6. Mr. Kane, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reference under Section 18 of the MSMED Act is not tenable in the present case before the MSEFC since there is an