1. M/s. Bridge & Roof Company (India) Limited, a Government of India Enterprise, having its office at 5th Floor, Kankaria Center, 2/1, Russel Street, Kolkata700071, West Bengal represented through authorized Officer. 2. State of Odisha represented through its Principal Secretary, Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Department, Odisha Secretariat, Sachivalaya Marg, Bhubaneswar 751001. 3. Director of Industries cum Managing Director, OSFC, M.S.E.F.C. Industries Directorate, Killa Maidan, Buxi Bazar, Cuttack, Odisha 753 001. 4. Directorate of Industries, Killa Maidan, Buxi Bazar, Cuttack, Odisha 753 001. ...Respondents W.A No.1124 of 2022 Page 1 of 30 Advocates appeared in the cases: For the Appellant: Mr. Gouri Mohan Rath & Mr. S.S. Padhy, Advocates For Respondent No.1: Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee, Advocate For Respondents No.2 to 4: Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, AGA HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN JUDGMENT 18.06.2024 Chakradhari Sharan Singh, CJ. 1. In the present intraCourt appeal, the appellant has put to challenge an order dated 22.04.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.5935 of 2022. 2. Learned Single judge, by the impugned order, has quashed the entire proceeding of MSEFC Case No.68 of 2021, pending before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Odisha („MSEFC, Odisha‟ in short) instituted under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 („MSMED Act‟, in short) mainly on the ground that the appellant (opposite party No.4 in the writ W.A No.1124 of 2022 Page 2 of 30 application) was registered under the MSMED Act after the award of contract by the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 herein). The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, has allowed the writ application filed by respondent No.1 also on the ground that the MSEFC consisting of four members had commenced the arbitration proceeding, which was not permissible under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 („1996 Act‟, in short), which stipulates an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of uneven number of members. 3. We have heard Mr. Gouri Mohan Rath along with Mr. S. S. Padhy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. 4. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that respondent No.1 had awarded the appellant a work order for "Fabrication, Erection and Painting etc. of Structural Steel Work in connection with the Power Plant Area of M/s. Bhusan Energy Ltd., at Dhunkanal, Orissa". Various amendments to the original work order dated 11.06.2010 were made, the last amendment being dated 25.06.2015. It is the case of the appellant that in accordance with the said work order and its amendments, the appellant continued to supply materials and rendered services to respondent No.1 and raised periodic account bills during the years2016, 2017 and 2018, which were paid in part. It is also the appellant‟s case that it continued to work till 10.05.2018 on which date W.A No.1124 of 2022 Page 3 of 30 the assigned work was admittedly completed, whereupon the respondent No.1 had issued completion certificate. After the completion of work, the appellant pursued respondent No.1 for release of its contractual dues including final bills arising out of the work, and issued various letters and emails dated 30.09.2019, 21.05.2020, 21.06.2020 and 07.08.2020, in that regard. It is the further case of the appellant that it being a registered Small Scale Industrial Enterprise („MSME‟, in short), approached MSEFC, Odisha by making a reference under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, alleging nonpayment of the amount that was due to it (the supplier) by the respondent No.1 (the buyer), which came to be registered as MSEFC Case No.68 of 2021. 5. A notice was issued by the MSEFC to respondent No.1 in the said MSEFC Case N