AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sujoy Paul, J.—This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 24.12.2010 in case No. MSEFC/342/2009. This order is passed by the competent Council under the provisions of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act (27 of 2006). The order dated 18th August, 2011 (Annexure P/1) passed by First ADJ, Vidisha is also called in question, whereby the said Court directed the petitioner to deposit the requisite amount as mandated in the said Act. The case of the petitioner is that the Council has passed the order dated 24.12.2010 (Annexure P/2) wherein various objections raised in the written statement have not been considered and dealt with by the Council. If the said objections would have been properly addressed, the fate of the matter would have been different. It is further contended that the claim under aforesaid Act itself was not maintainable and, therefore, the Council had no authority to decide the same. The Council has utterly failed to consider and decide the objections raised in the written statement of the petitioner filed before the Council.
Shri K.N. Gupta, learned senior counsel submits that the appellate authority has erred in directing the petitioner to deposit the amount in its operative paragraph. However, on a specific question from the Bench, learned senior counsel fairly admits that such direction of deposit is inconsonance with statutory requirement of the Act. He fairly admitted that as per section 34 of the said Act it is precondition to deposit 75% of the awarded amount. The petitioner has not challenged the correctness of the amount directed to be deposited by the petitioner by the ADJ Court. It is only stated that since the Council had no authority to decide the claims of respondent No. 1, his order is bad in law and without jurisdiction and, therefore, if petitioner is required to comply with the order of ADJ Court Annexure P/1, it will cause serious financial burden on the petitioner.
Shri Raghvendra Dixit, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 supported the orders passed by the authority below.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is an admitted position that against the order of the Council Annexure P/2 petitioner has already preferred the proceedings in which Annexure P/1 is passed. Thus, the petitioner has admittedly preferred an appeal before the learned ADJ in which he has already raised all the grounds assailing the order of the Council. The matter is yet to be adjudicated upon on merits by the appellate authority/ADJ. Thus, I am not inclined to enter into the merits of the case. The only question which needs to be decided at this stage is whether the order Annexure P/1 dated 18th August, 2011 is bad in law inasmuch as the Court below had rightly directed the petitioner to deposit the decreed amount.
In the considered opinion of this Court, this question is no more res integra and Division Bench of this Court in R.S. Avtar Singh and Company Vs. Vindyachal Air Products Pvt. Ltd. and another, has already held that deposit of 75% of the amount is mandatory requirement. The same view is recently taken by Allahabad High Court in Uttar Pradesh Rajya Karmchari Kalyan Nigam Vs. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and Others, Thus, the order passed by the Court below directing the petitioner to deposit the said amount is inconsonance with the legislative mandate of aforesaid Act and no flaw can be found in the same. I am not impressed with the contention of the petitioner that the said direction will cause injustice or financial burden on the petitioner. If it is a legislative mandate and requirement of the Act, no flaw can be found in the same. This is also settled in law that this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction should not pass an order which runs contrary to law or contains any direction to the Court below or the authority to act contrary to the statutory requirement. This view is taken by the Supreme Court on in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ashrafulla Khan and Others, and Manish Goel Vs. Rohini Goel, .
On the basis of aforesaid, I find no flaw in the order Annexure P/1. The petitioner is at liberty to comply with the order and press his objections before the learned ADJ. With the aforesaid, petition of disposed of. Interim order is vacated. No costs.