ORDER :

1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the legality and sustainability of order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (for short “MSE Facilitation Council”).

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that petitioner is distributor of agricultural equipments/articles used in agricultural activities. In the business of distribution, petitioner purchased the goods from respondent No.2 (supplier) but failed to pay the amount towards the good purchased by it to the tune of Rs.6,36,450/-. Respondent No.2, thereafter, submitted reference application before respondent No.1, upon which, proceedings of conciliation was initiated. Notice was issued to the petitioner in which he did not appear. He was also served notice through e-mail and when petitioner failed to appear before MSE Facilitation Council even after issuance of the notices on different dates, paper publication was also ordered. The MSE Facilitation Council thereafter proceeded ex-parte and passed the order (Annexure P-1). Aggrieved by the order passed by the MSE Facilitation Council, this writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs:-

“(i) It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and setaside/quash the order dated 29.11.2022 MSME facilitation council, Raipur passed in application no.CG/15/S/CGH/00155 in the interest dfof justice.

(ii) It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the present case from the MSME facilitation council, Raipur.

(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also granted.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the date of entering into the contract, respondent No.2 was not registered as Micro, Small or Medium Enterprise under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “MSME Act”) and therefore, MSE Facilitation Council constituted under the Act of 2006 was not having jurisdiction to entertain application/reference submitted by respondent No.2. Order passed by the MSE Facilitation Council is therefore without jurisdiction. It is also contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of submission of Reference and issuance of notice, he suffered from serious medical ailment and therefore, he could not able to participate in the proceedings before the MSE Facilitation Council. Reference application is submitted on false ground with inordinate delay of about 4 years and therefore the Reference Application ought not to have been ordered on merits as the application was barred by limitation. Petitioner has also changed address and therefore notice was not served. He submits that date of submission of Udyog Aadhaar Memorandum is 07.05.2016 and was valid up to 30.06.2022. As on the date of entering into the contract, respondent No.2 was not having registration certificate as Micro, Medium or Small Enterprise, MSE Facilitation Council was not having jurisdiction to entertain application. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Silpi Industries etc. Vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. (2021 SCC OnLine SC 439).

4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that pleadings made by the petitioner that petitioner has changed the address is not correct on the face of record. Petitioner in writ petition has mentioned same address which is also mentioned in proceedings before the MSE Facilitation Council and, therefore, the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioner based on the pleading in the writ petition is baseless. MSE Facilitation Council after receipt of application for reference had issued several notices to the petitioner in which he failed to appear and thereafter e