MM/S JTL INFRA LIMITED AND ANOTHER ...Respondent(s) Through: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE ORDER 27112024 1. The petitioner through the medium of the preset writ petition has called in question the award dated 1st June, 2023 passed by Chairperson, District Level Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) SAS Nagar Punjab in case titled "M/S JTL Infra Limited v/s Executive Engineer PHE M & P Division Srinagar, whereby the respondents were held to be entitled for the payment of Rs 2,75,65,355.00/ (Rs. Two crore seventy five lakh sixty five thousand three hundred and fifty five only) as principal along with interest as delayed payment upto 31.05.2023 and the reference of the respondents has been accepted not only for the pending principal amount but also with interest there upon as per provisions of Section 16 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, Act. 2006 and an award of pending principal amount of Rs 2,75.65.355.00/ (Rs. Two crore seventy five lakh sixty five Page 2 of 10 thousand three hundred and fifty five only) alongwith interest of Rs 8,77,32,279.00/( Rs. Eight crore seventy seven lakh thirty two thousand two hundred and seventy nine only) upto 20.04.2023 (Total amounting to Rs 11,52,97,635.00/ (eleven crore fifty two lakh ninety seven thousand six hundred and thirty five only) as per Calculation Sheet attached, was passed in favour of the respondents against the petitioner. 2. Besides, further direction was issued to the petitioner to pay future interest on delayed payments as per provision of the MSMED Act to the respondents on Awarded amount from 01.06.2023 till its realization. 3. Learned counsel has vehemently argued that the award passed by Chairperson, District Level Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) is liable to be set aside for the reasons that the same is not in accordance with the law holding the field. 4. He further argued that the council has not applied its mind to the provisions of Micro Small & Medium Development Act, 2006 while passing the impugned award. 5. Learned counsel has further drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the object and reasons of the said enactment, a perusal whereof reveals that the act has been enacted to provide for facilitating the promotion and development and enhancing the competitiveness of micro, small and medium enterprises and for matters connected there with or incidental thereto. Page 3 of 10 6. In the aforesaid backdrop, Mr. Abdul Rashid Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn the attention of the Court to section 7 of the aforesaid Act, which prescribes classification of Enterprises, to which the aforesaid Act is applicable. For facility of reference, section 7 is reproduced as under: Section 7: Classification of enterprises 1) (Notwithstanding anything contained in section 11B of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (65 of 1951),the Central Government may, for the purposes of this Act, by notification and having regard to the provisions of subsections (4) and (5), classify any class or classes of enterprises, whether proprietorship, Hindu undivided family, association of persons, cooperative society, partnership firm, company or undertaking, by whatever name called, a) in the case of the enterprises engaged in the manufacture or production of goods pertaining to any industry specified in