ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the notice / letter no. 3505 dated 10.11.2015(Annexure-2) issued by the Deputy Director, Industries, Government of Jharkhand asking them to file objection to the claim petition filed by respondent no.4 for seeking payment of the principal amount of Rs. 2,16,66,994/- with interest of Rs.1,18,35,920/- for the delayed payment under the provisions of The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim itself would be not maintainable for the reason that the respondent no.4-Company has got itself instituted as Enterprise under the Act of 2006 only in 2015 while the payment under the agreement entered into between the parties for supply of stone chips and construction materials relates to the period February 2012 to December 2012. It is also urged that the Director of the Company – respondent no.4 applied for registration under the provision of Act of 2006 before the Bokaro Industrial Area Development Authority as would appear from memo no. 647/BIADA dated 21.7.2015. Even the application for registration relates to items which are not part of supply agreement with the petitioners. This issue cannot be gone into by the Jharkhand Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (hereinafter referred to as Council for short). Therefore, petitioner has approached this Court on the point of jurisdiction of the Council to entertain the claim petition of the respondent no.4. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the Council constituted under the provisions of Act of 2006 is only performing the statutory duty on the claim petition made before it by respondent no.4 arising out of certain agreement. Petitioner has only been asked to respond and file objection to the claim petition where it would be open for them to take all the law points and facts on merit. However, at this stage, this Court should decline to interfere with the matter. 5. I have considered the submission of the parties and gone through relevant material facts pleaded. This Court is also of the view that no interference is required in the matter when petitioner has only been asked to respond to the claim petition by filing its objection through impugned notice issued under the provisions of Act of 2006. 5. I have considered the submission of the parties and gone through relevant material facts pleaded. This Court is also of the view that no interference is required in the matter when petitioner has only been asked to respond to the claim petition by filing its objection through impugned notice issued under the provisions of Act of 2006. Needless to say that petitioner should therefore respond to the notice and take all the available grounds of law and facts related to the claim petition and its maintainability. It goes without saying that the Council would examine the matter upon consideration on its own merit taking into account all such objections taken by the petitioner. No observations made hereinabove shall be treated as comment on the merit of the case of the parties. 6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.