ORDER :

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 1630 dated 24.8.2021 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of the respondent no. 1 – Under Secretary-cum-Member Secretary, Jharkhand Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (hereinafter referred to as “Council”) in connection with Case No. JHMSEFC-09/2020 (New Case No. JH/01/S/JKH/00195), whereby the claim filed by the respondent no. 2 relating to payment of outstanding principal amount as well as accrued interest thereon against supplied goods/services rendered to the petitioner pursuant to several work orders dated 24.05.2005, 01.10.2008, 27.10.2008, 08.05.2009 and 15.07.2009 has been allowed.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that a claim application was filed by the respondent no. 2 under the provisions of Section 18 (1) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2006”) before the Council established under Section 20 of the Act, 2006 on 05.06.2000 for releasing outstanding payment against various invoices/bills relating to aforesaid work orders issued by the petitioner to the respondent no. 2 for unloading, handling, transportation of equipment/materials (refractory), storage, erection, testing and commissioning of mechanical plant & equipment, structures etc. and post commissioning services required for rebuilding of Coke Oven Battery Nos. 1, 2 and 5 at Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro. The aforesaid claim was made by the respondent no. 2 on the ground of wage escalation/price variation, extra work, additional manpower deployment and Final Acceptance Certificate (FAC) bill.

3. The petitioner raised three preliminary objections before the Council which were as under:

a. There being three separate cause of action vis-a-vis three separate work orders, one composite claim could not have been filed.

b. The work so involved in the present case was in form of works contract and not a supplier contract as such the case so filed under the provisions of MSME Act, 2006 was not maintainable.

c. The respondent no. 2 was registered with MSME in the year 2016 whereas in the present case, all the work orders were issued prior to 2016 and also executed prior to 2016. As such in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Silpi Industries v. Kerala State Road Transport, C.A. Nos. 1570-1578 of 2021, the application was not maintainable.

4. However, the Council vide impugned order dated 24.08.2021 directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 7,79,25,422/- as principal outstanding amount and interest thereon calculated in the manner as stated in the said impugned order.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per Section 18 (2) of the Act, 2006, the Council is mandated to conduct conciliation of the disputes between the parties either by itself or by seeking assistance of any institution or centre providing alternative dispute resolution services by making a reference to such an institution or centre for conducting conciliation and no further reference can be made to arbitration under Section 18 (3) of the Act, 2006 without compliance of the said procedure. However, in the present case, no conciliation was done by the Council through an institution. Compliance of