IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 27868 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- UNITED ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR IN CHARGE, N.MOHAMMED SALIM, AGED 52, S/O. NABUR SAYIB RAWTHER. BY ADV. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) SMT.C.VIJAYAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHAIRMAN, DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SYMPHONY ENGINEERS KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR FOR R2 G.P. SHRI.K.RAMESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 27868 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order of the Kerala Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Thiruvananthapuram, under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. I am not going into the merits of the case, since the Act itself provides for an effective alternate remedy before the appellate authority under the Act. In fact a Division Bench of this Court has in the decision in K.S.R.T.C. v. Union of India [2010 (1) KLT 65] has held that the appropriate course open to an aggrieved person by an order of the Council is to file an appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that for filing an appeal, 75% of the amounts has to be deposited. In fact that question has already been considered by the Division Bench in the above said decision. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the order in an appeal as provided in the Act, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2