Gauhati High Court M/S Web Printz vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 28 February, 2024 Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010226712021 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/39/2022 M/S WEB PRINTZ REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR APARAJITA RAJKHOWA, AGE 38 YRS. W/O PARAG KR. RAJKHOWA, OFFICE HATICHILA, KHANKAR GAON, GUWAHATI CHANDRAPUR ROAD, GUWAHATI ASSAM. P.S PRAGJYOTISHPUR, PIN781150. E.MAIL [email protected] VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI06 2:THE CHAIRMAN ASSAM TEXTBOOK PRODUCTION AND PUBLICATION CORPORATION LTD. PANBAZAR GUWAHATI781001 3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM TEXTBOOK PRODUCTION AND PUBLICATION CORPORATION LTD. PANBAZAR GUWAHATI78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU Page No.# 2/7 Linked Case : WP(C)/4794/2022 ASSAM STATE TEXTBOOK PRODUCTION AND PUBLICATION CORPORATION LIMITED REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI SHAH NAWAZ CHOWDHURY AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT G.N.B. ROAD PANBAZAR GUWAHATI 781001 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. VERSUS MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISE FACILITATION COUNCIL AND 2 ORS REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE UDYOG BHAWAN BAMUNIMAIDAN GUWAHATI 781021 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 2:THE CHAIRMAN MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISE FACILITATION COUNCIL ASSAM AT OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE UDYOG BHAWAN BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI 781021 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 3:M/S WEB PRINTZ REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT. APARAJITA RAJKHOWA AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HATICHILA KHANKAR GAON GUWAHATICHANDRAPUR ROAD GUWAHATI 781150 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. Advocate for : MR. P N GOSWAMI Advocate for : SC INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE appearing for MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISE FACILITATION COUNCIL AND 2 ORS Page No.# 3/7 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 28.02.2024 Heard Mr K P Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 4794 of 2022 and for the respondent in WP(C) No. 39 of 2022 and Mr M K Boro, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/M/s Web Printz in WP(C) No. 4794 of 2022 and for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 39 of 2022. Also heard Mr A Kalita, learned Standing Counsel for Industries and Commerce. 2. Since the issue is connected, both the writ petitions are taken up for disposal by the common judgment and order. 3. In WP(C) No. 4794/2022, the petitioner is assailing the directions passed by the Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council, Assam, vide the minutes dated 22.02.2021, whereby the conciliation authorities passed an award to the effect that the petitioner will pay interest amount as per Section 16 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. 4. In WP(C) No. 39 of 2022, the petitioner by filing the writ petition is seeking a direction to the respondent to pay the interest as awarded by the Micro and Small enterprise Facilitation Council, vide the Award dated 09.03.2021. 5. The facts of the case is that as per the concerned work orders, the petitioner in WP(C) No. 39/2022, who is the respondent No. 3 in WP(C) No. 4794/2022, i.e. M/s Page No.# 4/7 Web Printz supplied text books to the writ petitioner, Assam State Textbook Production and Publication Corporation Limited. Though payments have been made by the petitioner to the respondent against the supply of the aforesaid text books, interest was not paid in terms of Section 16 of the MSMED Act. Accordingly, the respondent filed an application before the Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council, Assam, for settling the dispute that has arisen between the parties for recovery of the said interest. Though the settlement was not successful before the Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council, the Council passed the award directing the writ petitioner to pay the subject interest to the respondent. 6. Mr K P Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned award of the Micro and Small enterprise Facilitation Council, is without jurisdiction and as such is illegal. He further submits that the mandate of the law