Orders passed by Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Councils are subject to the challenge mechanism under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and are not maintainable via writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when such efficacious alternative statutory remedies exist.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the sole proprietor doing business in the name and style ‘Steelman’s Mechanical and Engineering Contractor’. The firm is registered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MSMED Act, 2006) as a Micro Enterprise, having Udyam registration.

2. Pursuant to competitive tendering process, the petitioner was awarded the work of construction of 110KV multi-circuit transmission line from Malaparamba to Ramapuram by the Kerala State Electricity Board and an agreement dated 13.02.2013 was also executed between the petitioner and the Board. The total contract value was fixed as ₹56,30,852/-.

3. The petitioner completed the sub-setting of all towers and successfully executed the work on 24.02.2014. Despite completion of work, the final bill, EMD, security deposit etc. were not paid by the Kerala State Electricity Board to the petitioner. Then the petitioner invoked the provisions of the MSMED Act, 2006 and filed a reference before the Regional Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Kerala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Council’). The grievance raised by the petitioner before the Council was mainly regarding a non-payment of contractual dues, despite successful execution of the allotted work.

4. The Kerala State Electricity Board filed a counter statement disputing the claims of the petitioner and also raised certain counter claims, to which the petitioner filed a rejoinder. The Council, by order dated 09.08.2024, titled as Ext.P6 Award, refused to entertain the reference on the ground of maintainability. The Council took a view that the claim did not fall within the purview of the MSMED Act, 2006 and that it was a dispute emanating from works contract. It is aggrieved by Ext.P6 Award, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding in Ext.P6 that since the claim pertains to a works contract, the Council does not have jurisdiction to entertain the claim, is illegal. He argued that since the Council has refused to exercise the jurisdiction, which is vested in it and has not entered into any adjudication of the lis, Ext.P6 cannot be termed as an Award and therefore, is amenable to writ jurisdiction. He further, by relying on the decision in Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and another [(2025) 4 SCC 1] contended that even if it is assumed that an alternate remedy is available, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can exercise the writ jurisdiction.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that this writ petition is not maintainable, since the remedy of the petitioner is to challenge Ext.P6 as per Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in India Glycols Limited (M/s.) v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council [2023 KHC 7202] and the decision of this Court in Manveer Oberoi v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and another [W.A.No.1593 of 2020 dated 26.02.2021] in support of his afore contention and contended that the present attempt of the petitioner is to revive a stale claim.

8. On an anxious consideration of the rival submissions and the materials on record, I find considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

1^st responde