KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, VELLAYAMBALAM Vs. INDUSTRIES COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, the Kerala Water Authority has approached this Court seeking the following prayers:-

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 as well as the 3rd respondent.

(3.) It is contended that the petitioner had conceived the project for laying water supply pipelines for supply to Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation and adjoining Panchayats in the JNNURM Scheme of the Central Government. The 3rd respondent, which claim to be an Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise covered by the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED for short) was the successful bidder. It is stated that conditions of the contract were violated by the 3rd respondent and apprehending the termination of work, the 3rd respondent submitted an application before the 2nd respondent under the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The 2nd respondent initially rejected the claim which was challenged by the 3rd respondent before the High Court of Gujarat and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Thereafter, it is contended that without issuing notice to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent decided to refer the matter for arbitration and a retired Judge was appointed as Arbitrator. The petitioner on coming to know of the orders, challenged the decision of the 2nd respondent before the High Court of Gujarat by filing Civil Application No.16758/2017. A learned single Judge of the Gujarat High Court admitted the civil application but refused the interim relief by Exhibit P6. The petitioner filed Letter Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which was allowed by Exhibit P7 judgment and the 2 nd respondent was directed to consider the matter afresh, including the question of jurisdiction. The 2nd respondent again passed an order that the 3rd respondent is entitled to the benefit of the Act and accordingly decided to start the conciliation proceedings as per Section 18 of the Act. The true English translation of the order which is produced as Exhibit P9(a) is under challenge in this writ petition.