JUDGMENT

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeking, inter alia, the following prayers:-

“a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction, setting aside the impugned remarks/decision dated 14- 01-2025, made by Respondent No. 1 (Annexure- P3) under the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015;

b) Declare that the bona-fide mediation request dated 24/12/24, sent by the Petitioner to Respondent No. 2, be considered under the procedural requirements under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, (“Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement.-- (1) A suit, which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief… … … … … .), particularly in view of the non-response by the Respondent No. 2;

c) Direct Respondents No. 3 and No. 4 to take appropriate measures to ensure that bona fide pre-institution mediation efforts by litigants must be recognised U/S .12A of the commercial court Act.

d) Grant such further or alternative relief as this Hon’ble Court May deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience, including, without limitation, an order for the payment of costs incurred in this petition.

e) Pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice and equity.”

2. It is the case of the petitioner that it is a proprietorship and has been supplying goods to respondent no.2 - DP Polymers, pursuant to a commercial arrangement. The petitioner claims to have supplied goods to respondent no.2 under two invoices, and the total outstanding amount of Rs. 5,57,550/-, including GST, remained unpaid despite the delivery of goods and repeated reminders by the petitioner, constraining it to send a legal notice dated 21.12.2024 to the respondent no.2, demanding the outstanding dues. However, no response was received on such legal notice. It is stated that thereafter, in an attempt to resolve the matter amicably, the petitioner dispatched a mediation request dated 24.12.2024 to respondent no.2 through its advocate however, the respondent no.2 failed to respond to the said request.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a commercial suit against the respondent no.2 in the Commercial Court. It is the case of the petitioner that notwithstanding the petitioner’s sincere efforts to mediate in line with the legislative intent of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereafter the ‘Act’), the respondent no.1/Registry rejected the plaint. The impugned remarks/decision dated 14.01.2025 noted that in the absence of a Non‑Starter Report or Certificate of non‑settlement from the mediation authority, the procedural requirements under Section 12A of the Act were not satisfied.

4. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 1473/2025 before this Court. Vide order dated 06.02.2025, the same was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to file a fresh petition with appropriately framed prayers. Thereafter, the present writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner.

5. Mr. Mukul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset admitted that he does not seek to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act per se, as the said issue stands covered by the judgement of the Supreme Court in Patil Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1. Rather, he contended that the petitioner had made bona fide attempts to resolve the matter with respondent no.2 by sending a legal notice as well as a mediation request, which are in consonance with the underlying purpose of expediting commercial dispute resolution. However, despite the clear non-response by the respondent no.2, the rigid insistence on obtaining a Non-Starter Report results in an undue procedural burden and contravenes the constitutional principles of access to justice as enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. Lea