1. This writ petition seeks to challenge the award dated 10.09.2015 passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council at Odisha, Cuttak (for short 'the Facilitation Council') in claim application filed by the respondent, M/s. Sigma Engineering Private Limited, whereby the petitioners have been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 37,15,000/- towards principal and Rs. 69,20,659/- towards interest.

2. Facts of the case are that a tender was floated by State of Rajasthan for construction of vertical lift steel gates of Suk li-Selwara Dam Project in Sirohi District, Rajasthan. The respondent being successful bidder/tenderer, was issued work order for a sum of Rs. 4,71,35,000/- in the year 2005. As per the petitioners, in spite of receiving amount of Rs. 4,64,75,000/- out of the total amount, respondent-firm did not complete the work within the stipulated time frame. Even though the work was completed with inordinate delay, there were certain defects in the construction which were to be rectified/corrected. Despite several reminders by the petitioners, the aforesaid defects were not rectified/corrected by the respondent, owing to which the petitioners had to get the said work done through another contractor incurring extra expenditure. On account of all these facts, dispute arose between the parties.

3. Mr. J.M. Saxena, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that Clause 23 of the agreement executed between the parties provided for reference of any such dispute to the Standing Committee for settlement and if the decision of the Standing Committee was not acceptable, the aggrieved party was free to approach concerned civil court, as per Clause 51 of the agreement, having jurisdiction over the place where the agreement was executed. The respondent, instead of raising the dispute before the Standing Committee or approaching any civil court in the State of Rajasthan, approached the Facilitation Council. Despite objection raised by the petitioners about jurisdiction of the Facilitation Council, the said Council vide impugned award dated 10.09.2015, has required the petitioners to pay the respondent a sum of Rs. 37,15,000/- towards principal amount and Rs. 69,20,659/- towards interest.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General argued that the impugned award passed by the Facilitation Council is wholly without jurisdiction and the same, being illegal, is unenforceable against the petitioners. The Facilitation Council ought not to have entertained the claim of the respondent, who was having alternative efficacious remedy of reference of the dispute to the Standing Committee under Clause 23 of the agreement executed between the parties.

5. Mr. Ashutosh Bhatia, learned counsel referred to Section 18(1) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006(for short 'the Act of 2006'), which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any party to a dispute may, with regard to any amount due under Section 17, make a reference to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council. It is argued that the impugned award passed by the Facilitation Council falls in the scope of Section 18(3) of the Act of 2006 which inter alia provides that where the conciliation initiated under sub-section (2) of Section 18 is not successful and stands terminated without any settlement between the parties, the Council shall either itself take up the dispute for arbitration or refer to it any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services for such arbitration and the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(for short 'the Act of 1996') shall then apply to the dispute as if the arbitration was in pursuance of an arbitration agreement referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act of 1996. Learned counsel submitted that objection with regard to jurisdiction of the Facilitation Council is devoid of any merit because sub-section (4) of Section 1