Rajasthan High Court
Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam ... vs M/S. Rajasthan Elechem P. Ltd on 9 February, 2021
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
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
(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
(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.
(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
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
