AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.

1. Re: I.A. No. 6049 of 2018 (In L.P.A. No. 1035 of 2018) & I.A. No. 6050 of 2018 (In L.P.A. No. 1036 of 2018).

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The appeals are reported to be delayed by 3 and 5 days respectively.

3. We have considered the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation applications and we find that sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay in filing the appeals. The delay is condoned and the appeals shall be treated to be within time.

4. Both the Interlocutory Applications stand allowed accordingly.

Re: L.P.A. No. 1035 of 2018 & 1036 of 2018.

These Intra Court Appeals have been filed assailing the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 19th June, 2018, whereby an order passed by the Facilitation Council, Patna in Reference Case No. 05/2015 and Reference Case No. 01/2016 dated 06.02.2018 has been quashed, as it has been held to be without jurisdiction and non-est in law. The matter has been remitted back to the Facilitation Council, Patna to make an appropriate reference in terms of Section 18 (3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSMED Act, 2006” in short).

2. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset has urged that the writ petition was a clear dilatory tactics and ought not to have been entertained by the learned Single Judge inasmuch as the Facilitation Council was not lacking in any inherent jurisdiction on the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge.

3. The background in which the submissions have been raised discloses that this is the second round of litigation between the parties. The work for establishment of towers for mobile services and providing ancillary works and material was entrusted by the respondent petitioner to the appellant. The services so engaged led to the dispute of certain payments which according to the appellant was due on the respondent petitioner. The Facilitation Council passed an order on 30th of June, 2016 on an application being moved in terms of the 2006 Act directing payments to be made to the appellant. The respondent petitioner challenged the said order in C.W.J.C. No. 14884 of 2016 and 15044 of 2016 that were disposed of on 11th April, 2017 by a detailed judgment holding that the provisions of Section 18 of the 2006 Act were not followed inasmuch as it was the duty of the Facilitation Council to first attempt conciliation and in the event of any failure, the arbitration stage would arrive later on in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “1996 Act”). It was further opined in Paragraphs 74 and 75 as follows:-

“74. So from the above quotations and discussions, it is apparently clear that either the Facilitation Council will take the burden on its shoulder for arbitration or it relegates the matter to anybody. Either the Facilitation Council or anybody while making arbitration will follow the certain provision of Code of Civil Procedure as mention in Section 19 of the Act for the arrival to a fair and proper conclusion.

75. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order containing memo No. 3898 dated 27.10.2016 and the order containing memo No. 3913 dated 28.10.2016 passed by the Facilitation Council are hereby quashed. But, it is not end of the matter, this Court directs both the parties to appear before the Facilitation Council within 15 days from the date of passing the order of this Court. They should present themselves, the Facilitation Council will make effort to resolve the dispute, in future, either the Facilitation Council itself will take responsibility of arbitrator or refer the matter to third party, according to the provisions of the Act, for arbitration.”

4. It is thereafter, that conciliation proceedings were undertaken and from the records of the writ petition we find that the appellant filed L.P.A. No. 827 of 2017 challenging the said judgment which was dismissed on 17th July, 2017