JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - The writ petition is against an award dated 06.01.2016 passed in Case No.JHMSEFC-08/2014. 2. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the award passed under 53ection 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act 2006 is not maintainable within the path of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but since the award has been passed by quorum of 9 members inclusive of Chairman, therefore, the same is contrary to the provision as laid down under Section 21(1) read with Section 21(3). 3. Mr. Anjani Nandan, A.C to G.A submits by referring to the counter affidavit herein that the notification dated 19.03.2008 issued by the Industrial Department, State of Jharkhand, notified in the official Jharkhand Gazette, showing therein that in view of the provision of Rule 4 of the Jharkhand State Micro & Small Enterprises Development Facilitation Council Rules, 2007 which stipulates that the members of the council would be not less than 5 and higher than 9 and in view of such provision a notification has been issued on 19.03.2008 to constitute the council consisting of 9 members. 4. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Jharkhand State Micro & Small Enterprises Development Facilitation Council Rules, 2007 contained therein the provision of Rule 4 is contrary to the rule made under Section 21(1) Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 and being inconsistent to the said provision, since the quorum of the council has been decided, the said council having passed the award is contrary to the statutory provision and, therefore, is not sustainable. 5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed his submission and submits without assailing the provision of Jharkhand State Micro & Small Enterprises Development Facilitation Council Rules, 2007 by the petitioner this argument is not fit to be accepted. 6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be allowed to withdraw the writ petition in order to challenge said rule and its consequence. 7. In view thereof, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty aforesaid. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.