HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1804/2019
Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Ajmer Through Its
Superintending Engineer (Mm), Vidyut Bhawan, Panchsheel,
Makarwali Road, Ajmer (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Rajasthan Elechem P. Ltd., Through Its Director Sh. Sharad
Bakliwal, B-70, Upasana House, 2Nd Floor, Rajendra Marg, Bapu
Nagar, Jaipur 302015 (Raj.)
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1808/2019 Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Ajmer Through Its Superintending Engineer (Mm), Vidyut Bhawan, Panchsheel, Makarwali Road, Ajmer (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus M/s. Anamika Conductors Ltd., Through Its Director Sh. Sharad Bakliwal, B-70, Upasana House, 2Nd Floor, Rajendra Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur 302015 (Raj.)
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Virendra Lodha, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Jai Lodha For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sunil Nath with Mr.Akash Shrivastava HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 09/02/2021 These two writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner- Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited challenging order dated 30 th October, 2018 passed under Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the (Downloaded on 10/02/2021 at 10:29:05 PM) (2 of 4) [CW-1804/2019] Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short "the Act of 2006").
The issue with regard to entertaining the writ petition against the order passed under Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act of 2006 has been decided by this Court in the case of Superintending Engineer (MM) Vs. M/s.Elektrolites (Power) Pvt. Ltd. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.27447/2018,vide common order dated 05 th March, 2019 along with connected writ petition.
This Court in the case of Superintending Engineer (MM) (supra) has found that the writ petition is not maintainable against an order passed under Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act of 2006. Relevant portion of the order passed in the case of Superintending Engineer (MM) (supra) is quoted hereunder for ready reference :
"I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record.
This Court finds that the coordinate Bench in SBCWP No.988/2018 (supra) has taken a view that the award which is passed under Sub-Section (2) of Section 18 of the Act of 2006 cannot be challenged in the writ petition and remedy lies as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
This Court finds that the view taken by the Single Bench of this Court has been affirmed by the Division Bench in DB Special Appeal Writ No.591/2018 vide its judgment dt. 26.04.2018.
This Court is bound by the decision rendered by the Division Bench and as such the present writ petitions are not held to be maintainable and the (Downloaded on 10/02/2021 at 10:29:05 PM) (3 of 4) [CW-1804/2019] petitioners are always free to avail appropriate remedy as per Sub-Section (3) of Section 18 of the Act of 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised submission that before passing the impugned award, the council has not taken into account the conciliation proceedings as well as arbitration proceedings, and as such the order is vulnerable in eye of law.
The present writ petitions are found to be not maintainable and as such the present writ petitions are dismissed. This Court further finds that in case the Division Bench takes a different view then what has been decided in DB Special appeal Writ No.591/2018 (supra), the parties would be bound by the same and the present writ petitions are accordingly dismissed as not maintainable before this Court."
Learned counsel for the petitioner- Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited submitted that the order passed by this Court in the case of Superintending Engineer (MM) (supra) is under challenge before the Division Bench and the matter is likely to be taken-up on 26th April, 2021.
This Court finds that the order, which is assailed in the present writ petitions, cannot be challenged by way of writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the party/petitioner is always free to avail the remedy, as provided under the Act of 2006.
Accordingly, this Court finds that the present writ petitions are not maintainable, hence, the same are dismissed.
This Court, however, finds that if the Division Bench takes a different view as what has been decided in DB Special Appeal Writ No.591/2018, the parties would be bound by the same. (Downloaded on 10/02/2021 at 10:29:05 PM)
(4 of 4) [CW-1804/2019] At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at least, liberty may be granted to the petitioner to file an application for condonation of delay, if the petitioner intends to challenge the award passed under the Act of 2006.
This Court finds that the present writ petitions are not maintainable and if the petitioner intends to challenge the award by way of filing an application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act of 1996"), the Competent Court has been conferred power under Sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Act of 1996 to consider the delay, if any, caused in filing the application. The delay in filing application to challenge the award can be considered by the Competent Court after considering the relevant provisions of law.
A copy of this order be separately placed in the connected file.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J Sakshi/Preeti Asopa/84-85 (Downloaded on 10/02/2021 at 10:29:05 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)