THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32680 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not expeditiously disposing of the reference No.38/1/2009/09 filed by the petitioner firm by conducting regular hearings as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of the provisions of the Act 27 of 2006 and also in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the said reference by fixing a time frame for disposal.” It is the case of the petitioner that it is a small-scale industry/enterprise engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of industrial paints and its factory is situated at IDA Jeedimetla, Hyderabad. It is submitted that it has supplied goods manufactured by it to the second respondent and such supplies fall within the scope of Section 2(m) and (n) of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short ‘the Act’). Alleging that there is due amount by the second respondent, the petitioner approached the first respondent - Andhra Pradesh Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Hyderabad, constituted under the Act, to recover an amount of Rs.10,51,683/- together with costs. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though it has approached the first respondent about two years back, in December, 2008, by way of reference and statement of claim, the same is not being decided by the first respondent and such pendency for a long time would run contrary to the objects and scheme of the Act. In view of pendency of the reference and statement of claim made by the petitioner before the first respondent, it is not necessary to go into the claim of the petitioner. It is suffice to say that as the petitioner approached the first respondent as early as in December, 2008, and as it is stated that such reference and statement of claim is pending, I deem it appropriate to direct the first respondent to decide the reference and statement of claim made by the petitioner, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 27th DECEMBER, 2010. kvni