THE MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL & 1 other(s) Appearance: MS. MANVI DAMLE for M/S. NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR JAY TRIVEDI, AGP (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ROHAN A SHAH(7497) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 RUSHABH H SHAH(7594) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 Date : 16/02/2023 ORAL ORDER 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Jay Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1 MSME Council while Mr. Rushabh H. Shah, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.2 M/s. Sarang Builders. 2. With consent of the learned advocates for the respective Page 1 of 10 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 17 21:02:52 IST 2023 C/SCA/6647/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/02/2023 parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 3. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council in proceeding with hearing of reference, being Application No.GJ24E0024248 / S / 00001 made by respondent No.2 under section 18 of the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short, hereinafter referred to as `the MSMED, Act'). 4. Facts in brief would indicate that, the petitioner Company was awarded a contract on 14.03.2015. Pursuant to the work order so awarded, the work was to be completed on or before 13.3.2016, however as a Page 2 of 10 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 17 21:02:52 IST 2023 C/SCA/6647/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/02/2023 result of delay on the part of contractor in completing the work, it was completed on 29.6.2016. Some disputes arose between the petitioner and respondent No.2 as a result of which, the respondent No.2 invoked Section 18 of the MSMED Act and approached the Facilitation Council. A notice was issued to the petitioner Company which it received in the year 2019. 5. Ms. Manvi Damle, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in light of the decisions of this Court on which facts have been recorded while issuing notice on 9.6.2021, the proceedings before the MSME Council are without jurisdiction. She would submit that this is so because the registration by respondent No.2 as a supplier was in the year 2018, post the awarding and completion of the contract. She would rely on a decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.619 of 2019 Page 3 of 10 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 17 21:02:52 IST 2023 C/SCA/6647/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/02/2023 and the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited v. Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2022 SCC Online SC, 1492 especially paras 31 to 34 thereof. 6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties, the facts are not in dispute particularly the date of registration of the respondent No.2 which is of the year 2018 much after the contract was executed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (Supra) in paras 31 to 34, held as under: "31. One of the submissions made by the Ld. Counsels for the Buyers was that if the party Supplier was not the "supplier" within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the MSMED Act, 2006 on the date of the contrac