ORDER : This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.10.2014 passed by Jharkhand Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, Ranchi (herein after referred as the 'Council') whereby and where under petitioner was directed to refund Security Money along with interest at the rate of three times of the bank rate fixed by the RBI. 2. It is stated that the petitioner issued work order on 16.10.2001 in favour of respondent no.2 for Overhauling of Air Blower for Batac Jig including supply of spares for the same at Kedla (W). In the work order, it was mentioned that the work must be completed within 15 days from the date of receipt of the same or from the date of handing-over the site to respondent no.2. It is stated that respondent no.2 completed the work after about one year of the stipulated period. Thereafter, petitioner paid all the contractual dues to the respondent no.2 after deducting the penalty. It is stated that that respondent no.2 received the aforesaid amount without any objection. 3. It is further stated that the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (herein after referred as the said Act) came into force w.e.f. 02.10.2006. The respondent no.2 filed an application before the Council for the refund of penalty, security deposit and cash deducted from the bill of the respondent no. 2 in the year 2002. It appears that the aforesaid application, of the respondent no.2, disposed of by the Council by the impugned order. 4. Sri A.K.Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the aforesaid Act came into force with effect from 02.10.2006, therefore, the Council has no jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute of the year 2002. Accordingly, Sri Das submits that the impugned order is without jurisdiction, thus, nonest in the eyes of the law. 5. On the other hand, Sri Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 submits that the respondent no.2 filed representation before the petitioner for refund of the security money till 2009, because the same cannot be forfeited by the petitioner as per terms and conditions of the agreement. Accordingly, Sri Krishna submits that the respondent no.2 has right to file application before the Council for refund of the security amount even after coming into force of the said Act and the Council has jurisdiction to decide the dispute. 6. Accordingly, Sri Krishna submits that the respondent no.2 has right to file application before the Council for refund of the security amount even after coming into force of the said Act and the Council has jurisdiction to decide the dispute. 6. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case. 7. Section 1 (2) of the aforesaid Act reads as under : "It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification, appoint; and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act and any reference in any such provision to the commencement of this Act shall be construed as a reference to the coming into force of that provision." 7. It is not in dispute that the Act came into force with effect from 2.10.2006. There is no stipulation in the Act to show that the said Act will come into force with retrospective effect. In the absence of said stipulation, it will be presumed that the Act will come into force with prospective effect. 8. In this case, admittedly, the work order issued in the year 2001 and the respondent no.2 completed the work in the year 2002. Thereafter, petitioner paid all the contractual dues to the respondent no.2 after deducting the penalty and tax etc. It is specifically stated in the writ application that the respondent no.2 received the aforesaid amount without any objection. However, it appears that the respondent no.2 raised some dispute for refund of the security amount, thus the above dispute raised before commencement of the said Act. Therefore, in my view, said dispute can only be adjudicated by the regular forum by filing a civil suit. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, respondent no.2 has no right to file application before the Council under section 18 of the aforesaid Act and the impugned order passed by the Council is also without jurisdiction. 9. In view of the discussions made above, I allow this application and quash the impugned order dated 17.10.2014 (Annexure-5) passed by the Jharkhand Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council.