Allahabad High Court Paradigm Enterprises Thru. Director ... vs Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises ... on 19 April, 2024 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHCLKO:30780DB Court No. 3 Case : WRIT C No. 3594 of 2024 Petitioner : Paradigm Enterprises Thru. Director Ritika Pandey Respondent : Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council Lko. Thru. Chairperson/Chairman And Others Counsel for Petitioner : Sarvesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent : C.S.C. Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Heard Shri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajesh Tiwari, who has filed his power on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 and Shri Pritish Kumar, who has filed his power on behalf of private respondent no.5. 2. This Court had heard the matter yesterday and had passed an order which is being quoted hereinbelow : "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of recovery notice dated 16.04.2024 issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Lucknow and recovery notice dated 22.03.2024 passed by Tehsildar Sadar, Lucknow. 3. In pursuance of the award passed by The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Highways Authority of India vs. Sheetal Jaidev & others (Civil Appeal No.5256 of 2022) and order of this Court passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.2950 of 2023 (Shiv Prakash Verma vs. Competent Autho./Special Land Acquisition Officer) and in Writ Petition (C) No.11629 of 2023 (Sabhakant and 15 others vs. Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways). It has been submitted that no recovery notice/citation would have been issued by the respective authorities as it is an award of arbitration passed under section 34 is executable only under Section 36 of Arbitration Act and the administrative authority cannot turn them into execution proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out Section 14 of The Uttar Pradesh Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (Facilitation of Establishment and Operation Act, 2020 wherein it has been provided that if an appeal preferred is dismissed or if an Enterprise does not file any appeal under Section 19 of The MSMED Act, challenging the arbitral award then the said award shall be executed by the concerned District Collector and the amount due shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners says that petitioner's appeal filed under Section 19 of MSMED Act is pending before the Commercial Court, Lucknow and therefore, even under provision of the Act 2020, only such appeal is dismissed, the respondents can recover the dues as given in the arbitral award as arrears of land revenue. 5. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel has prayed for time to seek instructions from respondent no. 3 as to the circumstances under which the recovery notice has been issued. 6. Put up tomorrow, i.e.19.04.2024 as fresh." 3. This Court had granted time to learned Standing Counsel to address this Court on the power of district administration to proceed with the recovery as the appeal of the petitioner under Section 19 was pending and had not yet been decided looking to the language of Section 19 of The MSMED Act. 4. Today, when the matter was taken up, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 has pointed out that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.8511 of 2023 (Paradigm Enterprises Lucknow through its Director vs. Union of India and others) alleging therein that a dispute had been raised by the respondent no.5 before the MSME Facilitation Council and notice was issued to the petitioner for conciliation. However, conciliation proceedings resulted in failure and arbitration was undertaken by the Facilitation Council where the petitioner was not being heard and the petitioner being apprehensive that the Facilitation Council might pass an award against an arbitral award without following the procedure as provided under the Act and as per law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. The prayer in the Writ Petition No.8511 of 2023 was to issue a direction to Arbitrator, MSME Facilitation Council to proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with the provisions of 1996 Act and the MSME Development Act, 2006. The Writ Petition (C) No.8511 of 2023 was filed on 27.09.2023 and an award was also passed by the Facilitation Council on 27.09.2023. On the very date, the petitioner had filed the writ petition 6. The writ petition was dis