##PAGE1##

S.No. 10 Regular Cause list

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

WP(C) 1723/2026 CM 4560/2026

Reserved on : 27.07.2026 Pronounced on : 31.07.2026 Uploaded on : 31.07.2026

Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full

M/S MASHAD STEEL INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS PARTNER

…Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Azhar Ul Amin, Adv with Mr. Shahid Ashraf, Advocate

Vs.

UNION TERRITORY OF J AND ...Respondent(s)

K AND OTHERS Through: Mr. Waseem Gul, GA

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner herein is seeking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226

of Constitution of India, the petitioner, a micro enterprise registered under Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006, (hereinafter for short to be referred as “Act of 2006”), is seeking writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to pay the amount of Rs. 5,93,137/- along with interest in terms of Sections 15 and 16 of the Act

of 2006.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner in the year 2011 and 2012 was

allotted work orders by respondent No.4 as a nodal agency for the

WP(C) 1723/2026 Page | 1

construction of various panchayat ghars across Kashmir division on the basis of 13^th Finance Scheme to various micro and small- scale industry holders including the petitioner. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner carried out certain works between 2013 and 2017 @ Rs. 20 lacs per panchayat ghar. The construction of each steel roof truss was fixed at 7.20 lacs per panchayat ghar. The scope of original work as per work orders was only the cost of steel roof truss, the site engineers directed the petitioner to install eaves boards & soffits which were not the part of the work, as such the

work was executed at an enhanced cost.

3. It is further stated in the writ petition that the amount due to the petitioner

on account of construction of the afore-stated works was not released in its favour, although the factum of the execution of works and the amount due therefor is not disputed. The withholding of the payment due against the works allegedly executed by the petitioner has constrained the petitioner to approach this court by filing the instant petition for release of an amount of Rs. 5,93,137/- along with interest in terms of Sections 15

and 16 of the Act of 2006.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner was pointedly asked, as to

how the writ petition in hand is maintainable in view of express statutory remedy available to the petitioner under the Act of 2006. The learned counsel for the petitioner in response has submitted that the jurisdiction of this court in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not barred and the writ courts have shown their indulgence in similar matters earlier in time also. In support of such contention, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment of this court passed in a petition filed in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India bearing CM(M) No. 287/2023

WP(C) 1723/2026 Page | 2

decided on 14.12.2023 titled “Union Territory of J&K and Anr. vs. Aibak Electric Industries‖ and WP(C) 2686/2024 decided on

25.02.2026 titled “M/S Northern Engineers vs. UT of J&K and Ors.‖

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 6. The Act of 2006 has been enacted by the Parliament for the purpose of

facilitation, promotion, development and enhancing the competitiveness of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and for the matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. The object of the Act of 2006 is to protect and promote the interests of micro, small and medium enterprises. The definition of “buyer” in terms of Section 2(d) and

“supplier” in terms of Section 2(n) reads as follows respectively:

Section 2(d) states that a “buyer” means whoever buys any goods or receives any services from a supplier for consideration.

Section 2(n) states that a “supplier” means a micro or small e