Balakrishnan Nair, J,

1.These writ petitions are filed by the Kearla State Road Transport Corporation, which is a statutory Corporation, formed under the Road Transport Corporations Act. These writ petitions are filed by it, mainly challenging Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (Act No.27/2006), (herein after referred to as "the Act").

2. This writ petition is treated as the main case for the purpose of referring to the parties and exhibits. The Kerala Road Transport Corporation (for short "KSRTC") issued Ext.P1 purchase order dated 5.2.1994 to the second respondent for the supply of tread rubber for re- treading treys in its three major workshops. Ext.P2 dated 10.2.94 is one of the agreements executed by the KSRTC with the second respondent for supply of tread rubber. According to the KSRTC, since the goods supplied did not conform to the specifications, it suffered loss. 90% of the amount payable under the purchase agreement has already been released to the second respondent. Only 10% of the amount was retained, when it was found that the materials supplied were substandard.

While so, the second respondent filed O.A.8 of 2006 before the Industrial Facilitation Council, claiming amounts allegedly due to it. The petitioner KSRTC filed Ext.P3 objection. The Council, after hearing both sides and taking into account the rival claims, rejected the claim of the second respondent by Ext.P6 order. The said order was challenged before this Court, and this Court by Ext.P8 judgment, allowed the writ petition and directed the Council to take the O.A. back to file and dispose of the same, as provided under Section 18 of the aforementioned Act. Based on the said judgment, the matter was reheard and the Council on 26.6.2008 passed Ext.P9 award in favour of the second respondent. Seeking to set aside Ext.P9, the petitioner filed O.P.(Arbitration) No.242 of 2008 before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. But, the said Original Petition was dismissed by the District Court, by Ext.P10 order taking the view that it was not maintainable for the failure of the KSRTC to make pre-deposit of 75% of the amount covered by the award, as provided under Section 19 of the Act. In the above background, this Writ Petition was filed, challenging Ext.P10 and also seeking a declaration that Section 19 of the Act is unconstitutional.

3. We heard the learned counsel Mr.K.Jayakumar and Sri.V.V.Nandagopal Nambiar for the writ petitioner KSRTC. For the first respondent, Union of India, we heard Assistant Solicitor General Mr.T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan. We also had the benefit of hearing Sri.Kurian George Kannamthanam, Senior Counsel, on behalf of the second respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 19 of the Act is arbitrary and discriminatory and therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If any application to set aside an award is filed before a competent court, the buyer has to make pre-deposit of 75% of the amount due under the award. If the supplier is approaching, there is no such stipulation. So, the buyer and the supplier are treated differently and therefore, the impugned provision militates against the guarantee of equality contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel further submitted that the right to move the competent court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is similar to the right to appeal provided under the un amended Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SARFAESI Act'). So, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India ((2004) 4 SCC 311) the stipulation regarding pre-deposit has to be declared unenforceable. The learned counsel made special reference to paragraphs 55 to 64 o