Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(Pat) 1514

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Rajendra Menon, Anil Kumar Upadhyay, JJ.
The Best Towers Private Limited, 9/2 BIADA Industrial Estate, Patliputra, Patna through its Managing Director - Appellants
Versus
Reliance Communications Limited & Ors. - Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No.827 of 2017
IN
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14884 of 2016
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 840 of 2017
IN
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15044 of 2016
Decided On : 17-07-2017

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Jai Kishore Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Anuj Prakaash, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the State Mr. Rakesh Ambastha

The court upheld the principle that the Writ Court can exercise jurisdiction if a statutory provision is violated, even if an alternative remedy is available.

Headnote:
Statutory Violation - Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 - The court found a violation of Section 18 of the Act, which requires reference by the Facilitation Council to the Arbitrator and certain procedures to be followed. The court upheld the decision of the Writ Court, stating that if a statutory provision is violated, the Writ Court can exercise jurisdiction even if an alternative remedy is available.
Fact of the Case:

The court found a statutory violation of Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, and upheld the decision of the Writ Court.
Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the violation of Section 18 and concluded that the Writ Court had not erred in its decision. The court also dismissed the appeals and directed the Facilitation Council to decide the issue within 60 days.
Issues: Statutory violation of Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.
Ratio Decidendi: If a statutory provision is violated, the Writ Court can exercise jurisdiction even if an alternative remedy is available.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the Facilitation Council was directed to decide the issue within 60 days.

JUDGMENT :

Rajendra Menon, J.

Finding statutory violation of Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, the learned Writ Court has interfered into the matter. A detailed deliberation and consideration has been done by the learned Writ Court to say that there is violation of the statutory requirement of Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act which contemplates reference by the Facilitation Council to the Arbitrator and thereafter certain procedures to be followed. That being so, we find no error in the order passed by the Writ Court.

2. It is a well settled principle that if a statutory provision is violated, the learned Writ Court can exercise jurisdiction even under Article 226 of the Constitution when an even if an alternative remedy is available, this principle squarely applies to the present case. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.

3. However, the Facilitation Council is directed to decide the issue within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document