Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Board Of Visakhapatnam Port Authority vs The Union Of India on 25 September, 2024
wen"
[S329]
"UN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT ANMARAVAT
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
'PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 24250 OF 2084
™ Between:
Hoard Of Visakhapainam Por Authority, Rep. by its Asst. Engineer,
Engineering Depariment, Administrative Office Bullding, Part
Area, Visakhapatnam - 530 035 Anchra Pradesh
| . Petitioners
AND
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, Rep by its Secretary, The Ministry of Micro
Small and Maecium Enterprises UdyogBhawan Rafi Marg New Delhi -
PION,
2. Andhra Pradesh Micro And Small Enterprises Facilitation Council,
Established uncer Section 20 of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises
Development Act 2008, APMSEFC., Represented by its Commissioner,
Sih Flear APHC, Towers, Auto > Nagar, Mangalagin, Guntur District -
§22503.
3. The Regional Level Micro and Small merprises Faciiation Council
Visakhapainam, Rep. by is shehwan Ola. District Industries Officer,
Oistrct Industries Centre (DIC), industrial Estate, Kancharapaiam,
Visakhapatnam - 530 c07,
4. Mis Gayathri Engineering Construc ions, D.No 36-46-57,
Rancharapaiem, Visakhapatnam ~ 560008.
. Respondents
Petition under Article 228 of the Consiitution of india is Med praying
that in the circumstances stated in the af Mdavit Heel therewith, the High Court
TSeParwes
AP}
"
x.
nt
pondent No.
Pa
ords an the Re
sondent No 8.
a
5
3
the Ras
culany
08.08, 20:
Rart
TOF 2024
>
Nn
~~ LAND
SRS
Po
one BS
Mey GY
3
tis
me AS
PPS Oy &
ree
foes
:
Hy
for
Bee
he petition coming on
:
i
apport thes
NM
we
at
the
x
ae
}
Nos.2 to 3, the Court 9
ORDER
"Heard learned counsel for tie petivoner and learned counsel for
the respondents,
aN
Learnad counsel for the petitioner submits that, respondent Nos. 2
& 3 have no jurisdiction tO proceed further by invoking arbitration
proceedings under Section 183) of MSMED Act, 2008, pursuant to the
notice dated 09.08.2024 in view of the settled preposition of law as
brought to the notice of the 3 respondent council,
Learned counsel further submits that, a Single Jucige Bench of this
Hon'ble Court in its order dated 26.04.2023. in Rastrivya ispat Nigam
Limited Vs. The Union of {nofia and Ors., MANUVAP/2896/202? had dealt
the aspect of applicability of MSMED Act, 2006, to the civil construction
contracts and held that the Act of 2006 is not applicable to the 'works
contract. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:.
"38. Therefore, this Court for aff fhe above reasons
and intine with the case law cited holds that the work
that the Act 27, 2006 would not apply fo the works
comects which were awarded by the Visakhapatnam
Steal Plant in these cases by a process of tender Same
slement of Supply is involved in these works and that by
self is not enough for this Court to hold that the stand
of the respondents is correct.
OE
#3. Once this Court holds thar the Act dees not
apply, the council also does Hot have the jurisdiction to
entertain and decide this sart of dispute. # means tat
the subject matter fs whally outside its power or fotaily
foreign to is ambit... "
He further submite that this Hon'ble Court through various
decisions defined the term "works. contract", and further held that once
the sublect work came under the definition of Works contract as defined
by this Court, the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to procesd further
under Section 18 (3) of the MSMED Act,
Nis further submitted that Rule 9 of the APMSEFC Rules provides
for hearing and written proceedings, wherein, Sub-Rule {S} Rule
provides that the Council, on such terms as it may think FE al any stage
for reasonable or sufficient cause, adjourn the hearing from time fo tine,
but # shall so canduct the Hraceecd! ings that the decision is given as far
as possible within ninety days of the first date of hearing.
Sri N. Hamanth Kumar, learned counsel appeared for respondent
No.1.
in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, this Court finds that, there is a prime-lacie case made out by
the petitioner, Hence, there shall be an interim direction as grayed for,
for a period of four (04) weeks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted fo take out personal
notice an respondent Nos.3 to 4 through RPAD and file proof of service
in the Registry.
List the matter affer three (O23) weeks." a:
SOLBLOMITT i JOSERN
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ATRUE COPY! "SECTION OFFICE ER
"Ta,
1. The Secretary, THE UNION OF INDIA, The Ministry of Micro Smaii and
Meclum Enterprises (id fagBhawan Rafi Marg New Delhi 110047.
bug
The Commissioner, Andhra Pra sesh Micro And Small Enterprises
Faciitation Council, Estabils shed under Section 30 of Miers Small and
Medium Enfernrisas Deve Honment Act 30 S08, APMSEFC 8 Flanr
ABHC, Towers, Autc Nagar, Mangals agin, Guritur Disiriet . S39809,
The Chaivman, Regional Level Micro and Small Enterprises Facivtation
oi
Gouncll Visakhapatnam, Ofo. DNs
industries Centre (DIC >}, iehustrial §
Visakhanginam - S809
4. M/s Gayathri Enginsering Constructions, 0. No 38-48-57,
Nancharapaiem, Visakhapatnam - 530008. (4 to 4 by RPAD)
S. One Ot io SRE RAVITEUA PADIR: Advocate [OPUC]
8, One Sn N.Hemanth Kumar, Counsel (OPUCT
#7. One OC to Deputy Sofiniter General of} wa, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
fORUCI
& One spare copy
HIGH COURT
NY, J
DATED 28/00/2024
Liat the matter affer three {03} weeks
ORDER
WE.NG 29280 of 2024
SIRECTION
ASLO...
FHS
ras
Saat he
. &
x WS cys
Wee SVanr ye SS
° SN o LT
SERRE
