IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 20293 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S.GENERAL METALS, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN (DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM). 3. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, GOVT.OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (CHAIRMAN, KERALA MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM). ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. FOR R1 SRI.G.P.SHINOD FOR R1 SRI.S.SURESH FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU FOR R2 & 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 20293 of 2009 F ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 28th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board, prayer sought for is to quash Ext.P10 award passed by the second respondent, exercising its powers under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. 2. The ground on which the award is sought to be quashed is that though the second respondent is constituted by Ext.P1 notification, when Ext.P6 award was passed, petitioner noticed that the award was not signed by the members of the council, whose details are mentioned in Ext.P1. It is stated that when this complaint was raised by them by Ext.P7, Ext.P8 reply was issued informing that it was on account of a clerical mistake that names of persons, who were not members of the council, happened to be mentioned in Ext.P6 award. WPC.20293/09 : 2 : 3. Petitioner submits that thereafter they were issued Ext.P10 award, which was signed by persons who are members of the council but, who did not hear them. It is, therefore, contending that the award has been rendered by a council which did not hear the petitioner that this writ petition was filed. 4. It was in view of the aforesaid contention of the petitioner that despite the availability of a statutory alternative remedy, this writ petition was entertained by this Court. Along with the counter affidavit filed, the first respondent has produced as Ext.R1(b), the minutes of the second respondent held at the District Industries Centre, Ernakulam on 20-09- 2008, when the parties were heard. A reading of this minutes shows that the council which heard the petitioner and the first respondent consist of persons who have signed Ext.P10 award. The first respondent has also produced yet another copy of Ext.R1(b) which also contains the signature of the counsel who appeared for the petitioner before the second WPC.20293/09 : 3 : respondent. 5. Therefore, it is obvious that the persons, who have signed Ext.P10 award, themselves had heard the petitioner. If so, there is no merit in the contention raised against Ext.P10 award. Therefore, the writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits and it will be open to the petitioner to pursue the remedies available to them in accordance with law. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks