IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 31416 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MANAGING DIRECTOR, SIDCO, MARKETING DIVISION, P.B.NO.4, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI - 20. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES, FACILITATION COUNCIL OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. T.O.SOORAJ, CHAIRMAN, THE MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES, FACILITATION COUNCIL OF KERALA, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. DENNY POULOSE, S/O.M.V.POULOSE, PROPRIETOR, M/S.WOOD MASTER, MALIPPURAM, KOCHI - 682 511. 4. MANAGING DIRECTOR, HANTEX, P.B.NO.64, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 5. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R5 SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA, SC, HANTEX FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER(B/O) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 31416 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T This writ petition was filed challenging Section 19 of Act 27 of 2006 providing for deposit of 75% of the amount in terms of the award as a condition for filing of appeal. Petitioner also sought to quash Ext.P5 award. 2. According to the petitioner, 4th respondent awarded to it a contract, which in turn was sub contracted to the 3rd respondent. 3rd respondent filed a claim before respondents 1 and 2 under the provisions of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, which resulted in Ext.P5 award. It is in this background, the writ petition was filed challenging Section 19 and Ext.P5 award. Now petitioner submits that the liability under the award has been discharged, and therefore, the prayer for quashing the provision and the award does not survive for consideration. 3. Now what the petitioner submits is that a further amount of ` 8,50,494 is due from the 4th respondent and that this amount should be ordered to be paid by the 4th respondent. WPC No. 31416/10 :2 : 4. First of all, counsel for the 4th respondent does not admit that any amount is liable to be paid to the petitioner. In a writ petition, this Court cannot adjudicate on the disputed question of liability and if at all the petitioner has such a case, the petitioner will have to get the claim adjudicated before the appropriate forum. 5. Be that as it may, it is directed that it will be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment before the 4th respondent, in which event, the 4th respondent will examine the claim of the petitioner and if it is found that any amount is admittedly due to the petitioner, the same will be paid. It is made clear that this exercise shall be completed at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment and I also clarify that it will be open to the petitioner to pursue any further claim that they may have against the 4th respondent in appropriate proceedings. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp