PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR & 1....Respondent(s) Appearance: MR. JAINISH P SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS. JIGNA B SUCHAK, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 Date : 23/06/2014 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Mr.Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner. 2. In present petitioner, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that: "8(B). Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent No.1 to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.19,600/ at the rate of 27% compound interest per month from 01/01/2002 till the date of payment of the said amount to the petitioner as per section 16 of the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006." 3. So far as factual background in light of which the petitioner has taken out present petition is concerned, the petitioner has averred, inter alia, that: "3.1The proprietor of the petitioner firm is a technocrat and bio tech scientist engaged in the business of manufacturing HiTech Bio Cultures and is registered under the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 having Enterprises Memorandum Page 1 of 5 C/SCA/8687/2014 ORDER Number 240111200567 wherein the petitioner develops uniques mobile laboratory type HiTech Bio Technology products i.e. BIO CULTURES under the brand name GROWEL for agriculture, horticulture, floriculture etc since 1977. 3.2 The petitioner states and submits that the petitioner had provided the respondent No.1 with 2800 packets of GROWEL'S HITECH 'RAJPHOS' Bio Cultures between 01/11/2001 to 08/11/2001 at Rs.35 per packet. The petitioner states and submits that the due date for payment of the said supply of goods was 1st January, 2002 i.e. 45 days from the date of supply. The petitioner states and submits that the respondent no.12 had duly received the goods has not raised any objections with regards to the quality or quantity of the said goods supplied within time to them. 3.3 The petitioner states and submits that to its shock and surprise the respondent no.1 made payment to the petitioner at merely Rs.28 per packet without giving any reasons for the same thereof i.e. the respondent no.1 paid the petitioner Rs.78,400/n as against the agreed amount of Rs.98,000/.The respondent No.1 had an outstanding amount of Rs.19,600/ against the petitioner. Despite the various attempts of the petitioner to recover the amount from the respondent no.1, the respondent no.1 did not make the full payment for the goods supplied. The petitioner states and submits that the respondent no.1 had made a short payment of Rs.7 per packet. In the first time they reduced Rs. 2 per packet and second time they reduced by Rs.5 is shocking to see at from Rs.35 per packet, the respondent No.1 reduced the price to Rs.33 and then Rs.28 per packet which is absolutely illegal. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach the respondent no.2 authority for the recovery of its dues along with interest under the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. 3.4 The petitioner states and submits that the petitioner had approached the respondent no.2 for the recovery of Rs.19,600 along with compound interest 24.75% per month under the provisions of the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. 3.5 The petitioner states and submits that during the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner duly submitted an application prior to the hearing of the matter stating that the current rate of interest as prescribed by the RBI is 9% and therefore the petitioner is entitled to 27% compound interest per month as per section 16 of the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. 3.6 The petitioner states and submits the respondent No.1 raised absolutely false and frivolous defence and made reference to some expired Government Resolution which had no application to the reference made by the petitioner. The Respondent No.1 has admitted to the receipt of the goods in safe and good