SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.

1. The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 7072/2015 is the appellant before us.

2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the W.P(C).No. 7072/2015 vide order dated 14.12.2015 and observed as under:

“20. I find merit in the contention of the petitioner that upon the petitioner controverting that the respondent No.2 EEPL is a small enterprise as claimed by it, the respondent No.1 MSEFC was required to adjudicate the same and since there does not appear to be any remedy available against the decision of the respondent No.1 MSEFC in this regard, a writ petition would be maintainable there against. It has been so held by the High Court of Hyderabad in The Indur District Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. Vs. Microplex (India), Hyderabad MANU/AP/0785/2015 and by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in judgment dated 24th July, 2015 in W.P.(C) No.19319/2014 titled M/s Frick India Ltd. Vs. Madhya Pradesh Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council. It was held to be a jurisdictional issue.

21. However, I find that the orders dated 17th June, 2013 and 1st October, 2013 of the respondent No.1 MSEFC which the petitioner is challenging in this petition were a