Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge

Petitioners approached this Court claiming the following substantial reliefs:

“(i). Issue a writ of certiorari or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing setting aside order dated 28.2.2013 passed by respondent No.1 in Reference Case No. 6 of 2011.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to proceed with the reference No. 6 of 2011 again and dispose of the same in accordance with law.”

2. The specific case of the petitioners is that once their matter had been referred to the Arbitrator in terms of Section 18 (3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short 2006 Act’) read with Rule 10 of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council Rules, 2007 (for short ‘Rules’), then the Arbitrator so appointed could not close the proceedings by not resorting to further steps as contemplated in these provisions thereby leaving the petitioners in lurch.

3. It is not disputed that a reference under Section 18 (1) of the Act for recovery of Rs.32,26,760/- (Principal) as delayed payment Rs.70,20,386/- (Interest) as interest on delayed payment for the g