Madras High Court M/S.Subaya Constructions Co vs The Chairman on 16 March, 2021 W.P.Nos.2001 & 5452 of 2017 RESERVED ON : 10.03.2021 PRONOUNCED ON : 16.03.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.Nos.2001 and 5452 of 2017 and W.M.P.Nos.16122,16123, 5779, 2006 and 8905 of 2017 M/s.Subaya Constructions Co., Ltd., Rep.by its Director S.Meenakshi No.21, Soundarapandian Street, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 600 083. .. Petitioner in both W.Ps. vs 1.The Chairman The Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chennai Region, Guindy, Chennai. 2.M/s.DeeTech Projects Pvt.Ltd., (Earlier Known as M/s.Deetech Engineers) Represented by its Director S.Sivaraman 129, Aani Street, Chinmaya Nagar, Chennai 600 092. .. Respondents in both W.Ps. Prayer in W.P.No.2001 of 2017 : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to refer the claim of the second respondent in MSEFC/CR/27/2015 on the file of the first respondent to alternate 1/28 W.P.Nos.2001 & 5452 of 2017 dispute resolution by Arbitrators under Section 18 of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. Prayer in W.P.No.5452 of 2017 : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in MSEFC/CR/27/2015 on the file of the first respondent and quash the order dated 14.02.2017 and refer the claim of the second respondent in MSEFC/CR/27/2015 on the file of first respondent to alternate dispute resolution by Arbitrators in terms of Section 18 of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. For Petitioner : Mr.N.L.Rajah, Senior Counsel for Mr.B.Natarajan ( in both W.Ps.) For R2 : Mr.M.S.Krishnan, Senior Counsel for Mr.N.Umapathi (in both W.Ps.) COMMON ORDER By this common order, both the writ petitions are being disposed. W.P.No.2001 of 2017 has been filed by the petitioner for a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to refer the claim of the second respondent in MSEFC/CR/27/2015 on the file of the first respondent to 2/28 W.P.Nos.2001 & 5452 of 2017 an alternate dispute resolution by arbitrators in terms of Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Enterprises Development Act, 2006 and for incidental relief. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 25.01.2017. 2. By the time, when W.P.No.2001 of 2017 came up for admission before this Court on 20.02.2017, the first respondent had already passed order impugned in W.P.No.5452 of 2017 on 14.02.2017 in MSEFC/CR/27/2015. This Court had also recorded the submission of the 2nd respondent’s counsel stating that W.P.No.2001 of 2017 has been rendered infractuous in the light of the order dated 14.02.2017 in MSEFC/CR/27/2015 of the First Respondent. However, no orders were passed in W.P.No.2001 of 2017. 3. In W.P.No.5452 of 2017, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 14.02.2017 in MSEFC/CR/27/2015 of the first respondent and to refer the dispute to an alternate dispute resolution by arbitrators in terms of Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. 3/28 W.P.Nos.2001 & 5452 of 2017 4. The impugned order and the proceedings before the first respondent at the behest of the second respondent under the provisions of the aforesaid Act were challenged primarily on the ground that once the first respondent undertook conciliation, it was not entitled to proceed with the arbitration under the said Act. 5. It is further submitted that the impugned communication/order dated 14.02.2017 in MSEFC/CR/27/2015 of the first respondent was passed in a hurried and peremptory manner with a view to defeat the rights of the petitioner in W.P.No.2001 of 2017. 6. It is submitted that the aforesaid order was not a speaking order and cannot be termed as “an award, order or decree” within the meaning of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as made applicable for resolution of disputes under the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. 7. It is submitted that the impugned communication/order was not an “ awar