JUDGMENT : 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. These Special Appeals have been filed against the order dated 03.11.2014, passed by learned Single Judge, by which he has rejected the applications under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, for vacating the interim order dated 21.11.2013. 3. Learned Single Judge considered the submissions of the parties with regard to alternative remedy, and held that the question as to whether the dispute fell within Chapter V of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, to be referred to the Council, established under the Act, was doubtful. There was no payment due to the supplier for supply of any goods or rendering of any services, for which an application could be made under Section 17 of the Act to the Council. 4. Learned Single Judge, prima-facie, found that in the present case, the dispute was with regard to releasing of the earnest money, which was claimed by filing a petition to the Council with interest, with delay of 10 years. Firstly the dispute was not arbitrable by the Council as there was no question of any payment due for the supply of any goods, or rendering of any services, and secondly the delay of 10 years defeated the claim as barred by limitation. The argument that the earnest money was withheld in pursuance to the supply made in the earlier contract, and that the question of payment in respect of supplies made under the earlier contract was pending in the Supreme Court up to 2011, was prima-facie not found to be sufficient to give jurisdiction to the Council to arbitrate. The question as to whether deposit of 75% of the award amount will be too onerous condition to prefer an appeal, was found to be secondary to the question as to whether the Council had the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. 5. We do not find that learned Single Judge has committed any such error, which may require interference with the confirmation of the interim order. We further find that the questions raised before learned Single Judge, are not the same, as were considered by a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.889/2014-M/s Narmada Transmission Private Limited Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & Anr., decided on 17.10.2014. 6. We further find that the questions raised before learned Single Judge, are not the same, as were considered by a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.889/2014-M/s Narmada Transmission Private Limited Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & Anr., decided on 17.10.2014. 6. The Registry has now fixed the matter for 15.02.2015, to be listed before learned Single Judge, and thus, it will not be appropriate for this Court to hear arguments on the interim matter. 7. The Special Appeals are accordingly dismissed, with observation that learned Single will do well to decide the matters, as expeditiouly as possible. 8. A copy of this order be placed in all the connected files.