PunjabHaryana High Court General Manager Telecom (D),Bsnl, ... vs M/S H.V. Construction Co And Anr on 19 April, 2024 Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:052446 2024:PHHC:052446 AT CHANDIGARH 114 CWP85052024 Date of decision: 19.04.2024 GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM (D),BSNL, BATHINDA .........Petitioner VERSUS M/S H.V. CONSTRUCTION CO AND ANOTHER ........Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ ***** Present: Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) 1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the Award dated 19.10.2023 passed in Case No. BTI92 by respondent No.2Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Bathinda whereby the petitioner department had been directed to make a payment of Rs. 2,73,409/ within a period of one month failing which interest has been fastened in accordance with Section 16 of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2016 (for short "the MSMED Act, 2006"). 2. The petitionerBSNL has approached this Court averring that respondent No.1 is a partnership firm engaged in execution of works like laying of underground cables and others associated works 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on 24042024 21:54:34 ::: Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:052446 CWP85052024 2 like trenching, jointing, cable pulling etc. A agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 on 05.02.2018 for trenching and pipe laying of cable pulling, cable slicing and termination, preparation of joint chamber, fixing, painting and other assorted works in Nathana Block in GMT (D) Bathinda. After the execution of the works, respondent No.1 submitted bills/invoices for reimbursement of the same and on failure of the petitioner to release the same, a claim petition was filed under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006. The petitionerBSNL filed its reply raising an objection as regards maintainability of the claim petition. It is alleged that the impugned Award dated 19.10.2023 has been passed by the respondents without considering the objections raised by the petitioner including that the proceedings arising out of and in relation to the works contract could not be brought before the Facilitation Council. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the Facilitation Council is not competent to examine the payment disputes relating to a works contract in view of the settled law. He contends that if an order has been passed by an authority which is without jurisdiction, there is no requirement of exhausting the alternative remedies and a person aggrieved can approach the High Court directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Counsel for the petitioner was confronted as to whether the issue of maintainability can be examined by the Appellate Forum or not, to which he fairly conceded that the said issue of maintainability can also be examined by the Appellate Authority. It has also been pointed out to the Counsel that Section 19 of the 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on 24042024 21:54:34 ::: Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:052446 CWP85052024 3 MSMED Act, 2016 provides for a remedy of appeal and that a mis declaration has been made in Para No. 16 of the writ petition that the petitioner has no alternative speedy or efficacious remedy of appeal or revision. 5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner at length and have gone through the documents appended alongwith the present writ petition. However, without disputing the position in law that a writ petition would be maintainable where the proceedings are per se illegal or in violation of the principles of natural justice, however, the same does not mean that every case where such issue is raised or alleged must always be brought before the writ Court without following the procedure prescribed in law against such orders. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of "Radhakrishnan Industries versus State of Himachal Pradesh" reported as (2021) 6 SCC 771 that ordinarily a person must exhaust his alternative remedies as have been statutorily