L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a small scale industry registered in the State of Haryana. Its activity includes manufacture of various categories of Conductors. In response to a tender notice issued by the then A. P. Transco, the 3rd respondent herein, it submitted a tender for supply of Sebra ACSR category of conductors on 24-6-1998. The petitioner s tender is said to have been accepted and that purchase order dated 25-1-1999 is also said to have been issued. ( 2 ) THE petitioner claims that though it had supplied the agreed quantity of conductors in accordance with the terms of agreement, payments were not made to it as per the schedule. The petitioner claims that it is entitled for the benefit of payment of interest on delayed payment of the contractual amount in terms of the interest On delayed Payments To Small Scale And ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993, hereinafter referred to as the Act. ( 3 ) THE petitioner submitted its claim in terms of the said Act on 17-4-2003. The 2nd respondent refused to act upon the same on the ground that the petitioner s unit was registered in the State of Haryana. The 2nd respondent addressed a letter dt. 24-4-2003 to the petitioner leaving it open to work out its remedies with the Haryana Facilitation council and returned the application made by the petitioner. The said letter is challenged in the writ petition. ( 4 ) THE petitioner contends that the view taken by the 2nd respondent does not conform to the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder. According to it, for invoking the Provisions of the Act what is necessary is the existence of registration, irrespective of the place of registration. Stress is laid on clause 19 of the Agreement which had excluded the jurisdiction of the courts all over the country and required the parties to workout their remedies only in the courts at Hyderabad and Secunderabad. ( 5 ) A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. According to them, the state of A. P. has framed Rules known as the a. P. Industries Facilitation Council (Arbitration Rules), 1999, hereinafter referred to as the Rules in exercise of the power conferred under Section 7-B of the act. ( 5 ) A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. According to them, the state of A. P. has framed Rules known as the a. P. Industries Facilitation Council (Arbitration Rules), 1999, hereinafter referred to as the Rules in exercise of the power conferred under Section 7-B of the act. They contend that the Rules enable the authority constituted thereunder, to deal with the claims of such of the small scale industries which are registered within the state. They claim that the petitioner unit which was registered in the State of Haryana cannot maintain its claim in the State of andhra Pradesh. ( 6 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader for Industries. ( 7 ) THE basic facts such as the petitioner being the successful tenderer in respect of supply of a category of conductor to the 3rd respondent in the year 1998 is not in dispute. There are disputes as regards the schedule of payment and entitlement of the petitioner to be paid the amounts up to an extent and within a particular time. The petitioner claims that it was denied the payments for substantial length of time and thereby it is entitled for payment of interest under the Act. ( 8 ) THE parliament had enacted the Act with a view to protect the interests of small scale and ancillary industrial undertakings in the matter of payments to them. The Act provides for payment of interest on any delayed payment. Each state is empowered to constitute councils to give effect to the provisions of the Act. It was in this context that the State of Andhra Pradesh framed the rules through G. O. Ms. No,307 Industries and Commerce (SSI) Department dated 11-10-1999. The petitioner submitted its claim to the agency created under the Rules. The claim was refused to be acted upon on the ground that the petitioner is a unit registered in the State of Haryana and not in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, it becomes necessary to see as to whether there is any requirement under the Act that the unit claiming the benefit under the Act should be registered in the State where such claim is raised. Therefore, it becomes necessary to see as to whether there is any requirement under the Act that the unit claiming the benefit under the Act should be registered in the State where such claim is raised. ( 9 ) FOR this purpose, it is necessary to refer to the definition of supplier contained in Section 2 (f) of the Act, It reads as under:"supplier" means an ancillary industrial undertaking or a small scale industrial undertaking holding a permanent registration certificate issued by the directorate of Industries of a State of union Territory and includes, (i) the National Small Industries corporation, being a company, registered under the Companies act, 1956 (1 of 1956) (ii) the Small Industries Development corporation of a State or a Union territory, by whatever name called, being a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)" ( 10 ) A reading of the definition discloses that the requirement to hold a permanent registration certificate is by the Directorate of industries of "a State or Union territory". Totally different connotations would have arisen if the expression was the State or the concerned State . Use of the expression a state in this context is not without significance. The Parliament was conscious of the fact that the small scale and ancillary industrial undertakings registered in one state would have their contractual relations with the other states or agencies functioning in other states. It was tor this reason that the language was so employed as to enable the units to work out their remedies at the place where the cause of action has arisen or the contract has been either entered into or executed. The emphasis, in the definition is on the existence of permanent registration and not the place of registration. ( 11 ) FURTHER, if the claims are to be processed and resolved through in the State of Registration of the Industrial undertaking as regards contracts entered into or executed outside that state, the whole exercise would become futile. ( 12 ) THE State of Andhra Pradesh had framed the Rules. Even from a reading of these Rules, there is no indication to limit the claims only to those small scale or ancillary industrial undertakings registered in the state. ( 12 ) THE State of Andhra Pradesh had framed the Rules. Even from a reading of these Rules, there is no indication to limit the claims only to those small scale or ancillary industrial undertakings registered in the state. In fact, as long as the Act does not place such a restriction, it shall not be open to the concerned States to restrict the scope of the Act. ( 13 ) ANOTHER submission made on behalf of petitioner is that in the contract executed between the 3rd respondent and the petitioner, clause 19 was incorporated requiring the authorities to work out their remedies only in the Courts at Hyderabad and Secunderabad. By making a reference to these facts, it is contended that any relief that the petitioner may secure in the state of haryana would become futile. ( 14 ) IN this regard, this Court finds that submission of claims and consideration of the same by the councils constituted in a state other than where the contract was entered into or executed would render the very enactment futile. Both from the point of view of convenience and legality, the claims are to be dealt with by the States where the cause of action can be said to have arisen. For a State where the cause of action did not arise to adjudicate upon the issues touching on the contracts executed or entered into in a different state is by no means a possibility. On the other hand, it may render the proceedings futile. ( 15 ) VIEWED from any angle, the objection raised by the 2nd respondent cannot be sustained. Hence the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned letter and directing the 2nd respondent to receive and process the application of the petitioner in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules made thereunder.