State of Karnataka and others ......Respondents 2. ARB2722023 (O&M) M/s Whiteland Developers Pvt. Ltd. ......Petitioner Versus RSP Build Project Pvt. Ltd. ......Respondent Present: Mr. Harshit Joon, Advocate and Mr. Shubham Dayma, Advocate for the petitioner(2) in both the cases. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate, Ms. Manreet Kaur and Ms. Amisha Rana, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 in CWP334122024. Mr. J.S. Arora, Advocate, Ms. Ashish Khurana, Advocate and Ms. Diksha Mehta, Advocate for respondent No.3 in CWP334122024 and for respondent in ARB2722023. ***** JASGURPREET SINGH PURI J.(Oral) 1. Both the abovementioned cases are being taken up together for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties as the 1 of 13 ::: Downloaded on 29112025 00:42:20 ::: CWP334122024 (O&M) and 01 other connected matter 2 issues involved are interconnected and arise out of the same set of facts and are therefore being disposed of by this common order. CWP334122024 2. The present of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 27.06.2024 (Annexure P12) passed by respondent No.2 in Case No.113 of 2023. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there was an agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.3 with respect to a works contract, pursuant to which a dispute arose between the parties. Respondent No.3 was a supplier and the petitioner was a buyer. After a dispute arose between the parties, the respondent No.3 filed an application under Section 18 of the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter to be called as MSMED Act) vide Case No. 113 of 2023 before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Bengaluru (hereinafter to be called as 'Facilitation Council'). The aforesaid proceedings before the aforesaid council were not maintainable in view of the fact that the facilitation council under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, could not have initiated or even taken cognizance of a dispute arising out of a works contract because in the disputes which are pertaining to works contract, the MSMED Facilitation Council is not empowered to adjudicate the dispute as contained under Section 17 of the MSMED Act, it can either be of goods or services but a blend of the two is not permissible. In this regard, the 2 of 13 ::: Downloaded on 29112025 00:42:20 ::: CWP334122024 (O&M) and 01 other connected matter 3 petitioner also moved an application before the Facilitation Council, Bengaluru, seeking rejection of the said proceedings, but no order thereon has been conveyed to him. Thereafter, vide the impugned order (Annexure P12), the Facilitation Council, Bengaluru held that the conciliation proceedings in respect of the claim raised by respondentcompany had failed and, accordingly, the matter was referred for arbitration to the Arbitration & Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru. Both parties were directed to appear before the said Arbitration & Conciliation Centre. This order was passed on 27.06.2024 and the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 28.11.2024 to challenge the aforesaid impugned order on the ground that the aforesaid Facilitation Council, Bengaluru, could not have initiated the proceedings for consideration or even now further for the arbitration process under Section 18 of the Act because of the aforesaid reason. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further asserted that the reason as to why the aforesaid impugned order (Annexure P12) is bad in law, is that under the provisions of Sections 17 and