JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Anand, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "For issuance of direction particularly of nature of certiorari so as to set aside the order dated 22.01.2011 (Annexure-4) passed by the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Council in case No. JHSEFC29/2009. In the impugned order the present petitioner was directed to pay principal outstanding amount of Rs. 35,100/- which remained outstanding on 22.07.2005 along with the interest on delayed payment of settled dues of Rs. 5,76,610/- as on 15.11.1996 to 01.10.2006 and thereafter further interest @ 3 times of the Bank in terms of Section 16 of the MSMED Act, 2006 and also order dated 08.12.2015 passed by the learned Court of Sri S.B. Ojha, Sub-Judge-1, Ranchi in Arbitration Misc. Case No. 30/2011 (Annexure-5), by which the Challenge to the Award was responded by an observation to fulfil the condition pre-requisites entailed under the MSMED Act, which makes the total claim amount to be Rs. 35,100/- (+) Rs. 54,42,162/-= Rs. 54,77,162/- and the order dated 08.12.2015 directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 41,07,872/- for maintaining his quest for setting aside the order passed by the MSMED Council." 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the award passed by the Jharkhand Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Council was wholly without jurisdiction which was challenged in Arbitration Misc. Case No. 30 of 2011 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He submits that vide order dated 08.12.2015, the learned court below had directed the petitioner to deposit 75% of the award and at that stage, they have filed the instant writ petition challenging the award passed by the Jharkhand Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Council as well as the order dated 08.12.2015 passed by learned Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi in Arbitration Misc. Case No. 30/2011. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the award is wholly without jurisdiction therefore in such circumstances, instant writ petition is not maintainable. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of private respondent on the other hand submits that award passed by the Jharkhand Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Council has been passed in accordance with law and the same was challenged by the petitioner in Arb. Misc. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of private respondent on the other hand submits that award passed by the Jharkhand Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Council has been passed in accordance with law and the same was challenged by the petitioner in Arb. Misc. Case No. 30 of 2011. As per the mandate of Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred as MSMED Act), the writ petitioner was directed to deposit 75% of the total awarded amount, but the petitioner did not deposit that amount and now the Arb. Misc. Case No. 30 of 2011 has already been dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 08.12.2015. Accordingly, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the instant writ petition. He submits that once the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of the competent court under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it is not open to the petitioner to simultaneously file writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution only with a view to avoid the mandatory predeposit of 75% of the award. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties and after considering the materials available on record, this court finds that the award dated 22.01.2011 passed by the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Council was challenged by the petitioner under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the competent court in Misc. Case No. 30 of 2011 in which order for pre-deposit of the statutory amount was passed vide dated 08.12.2015 and the petitioner instead of complying with the said order challenged the award as well as the order dated 08.12.2015 on merits alleging that the award was without jurisdiction. The petitioner admittedly did not deposit the statutory amount as per the provision of Section 19 of the MSMED Act and accordingly Arbitration Misc. Case No. 30 of 2011 has itself been dismissed. 7. This court is of the considered view that the petitioner had challenged the award dated 22.01.2011 before learned Sub Judge-1, Ranchi under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and without taking the same to a logical end, it is not open to the petitioner to simultaneously challenge the award in this writ petition . 7. This court is of the considered view that the petitioner had challenged the award dated 22.01.2011 before learned Sub Judge-1, Ranchi under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and without taking the same to a logical end, it is not open to the petitioner to simultaneously challenge the award in this writ petition . This court is of the considered view that even the jurisdictional aspect, if any could very well be considered by the learned Sub-judge in the petition under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 had the petitioner deposited the amount of pre-deposit as directed by the learned court below. This court is also of the considered view that the direction to deposit the amount as per the impugned order dated 08.12.2015 passed by the learned sub-judge is as per the mandate of law . This court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 08.12.2015 passed by the learned court below in Arbitration Misc. Case No. 30/2011 asking the petitioners to deposit the statutory amount. The case has already been dismissed for non-compliance of order dated 08.12.2015 and the impugned award has become final. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case , no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.