ORDER : This is an assigned matter by an order dated 11th August 2017 passed on the administrative side by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Jharkhand. 2. This writ petition filed by Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (in short, Nigam) challenges award dated 14th July 2014 passed by the Jharkhand Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council. 3. The challenge is premised on the ground that the Council did not adhere to the mandatory provisions under sub-section 3 to section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (in short, MSMED Act), in as much as, in the conciliation proceeding before the Council the claim raised by the applicant was resisted by the Nigam and the conciliation was not successful and, therefore, the dispute between the parties was required to be taken up for arbitration either by the Council itself or to be referred to any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services. 4. Maintainability of the writ petition is under serious challenge by the respondent on the ground of statutory remedy of appeal. 5. The brief facts of the case are that M/s VEXCEL Computers Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in the work of meter reading, surveillance, computerised data logging and preparation of consumer bills for the erstwhile Jharkhand State Electricity Board (in short, JSEB). Initially a work order for the period between 01st October 2002 to 30th September 2004 was awarded to the applicant which was extended through different work orders till 31st December 2010. The applicant filed a claim on 12th July 2012 before the Council for payment of principal outstanding of Rs. 1,13,29,630/- with interest to the tune of Rs. 1,09,03,255/-. At the initial stage, the applicant had lodged a protest before JSEB that the work order contained several other items beyond NIT. A Purchase Committee was constituted which made a favourable recommendation on 18th February 2003 but in the light of the recommendations of the Purchase Committee the work order was not modified and as a result an amount of Rs. 35,91,279/- remained “keep back” amount. The applicant raised a claim for payment of “keep back” amount, service tax liability due against JSEB, amount deducted towards security deposit and performance guarantee and outstanding bills. 6. 35,91,279/- remained “keep back” amount. The applicant raised a claim for payment of “keep back” amount, service tax liability due against JSEB, amount deducted towards security deposit and performance guarantee and outstanding bills. 6. The claims raised by the applicant were resisted by the Nigam on the ground that M/s VXL Computers, a unit of the applicant, is made accused in Bistupur PS Case No. 150 of 2011. The said firm received excess payment of Rs. 4,43,45,377/- and therefore the Nigam seeks adjustment of the said amount before making the aforesaid payments due to the applicant. 7. The objections raised by the Nigam are summarised in the writ petition in the following paragraphs: “12. That it is submitted that from bare perusal of the Annexure-2 and 3 of the present writ application it is evident that the then JSEB has opposed the prayer made by the respondent no. 2 before the learned council on following grounds: A. That one FIR has been lodged by JSEB against one VXL Computers being Bistupur PS Case No. 150 of 2011 alleging huge misappropriation of public money by the said company and the fact is that both the companies are same and are owned by the same person and this is clear from the details given by the petitioner company before the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court that VXL Computers is a unit of VEXEL Computers Pvt. Ltd. and same has also come in the order sheet dated 10.01.2014. B. In para-3 of the aforesaid criminal writ application, the petitioner herein has given details about the VXL Computers on affidavit and it is the very same company against which respondent Jharkhand State Electricity Board (the then) has lodged First Information Report for recovery of excess payments made to VXL Computers to the tune of more than 2 Crores. The petitioner craves leave to produce a photo copy of the Criminal Writ Application No. 287 of 2011 at the time of next hearing of the case. C. As per the present petition and petition of the criminal writ application filed before Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, addresses of both the companies are having at 1st floor, Samridhi Complex, South Office Para, Doranda, Ranchi 834002. C. As per the present petition and petition of the criminal writ application filed before Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, addresses of both the companies are having at 1st floor, Samridhi Complex, South Office Para, Doranda, Ranchi 834002. D. So far as contents of the status report dated 04.01.2014 filed before Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court is concerned it is submitted that no where investigating officer has given clean chit to the present petitioner and its unit namely VXL Computers and has submitted that enquiry is pending against them and this counsel will also find that Hon'ble High Court has also made serious comments upon the then I.O. and has changed the I.O. E. The present claim filed by the petitioner is concerned regarding work of generating energy bills and other statements through computers in Ranchi Electric Supply Area under the then JSEB and the FIR in question is related to the very same nature of work done by the unit of the petitioner company in Singhbhum Electric Supply Area in which allegation is that by practicing fraud, the present petitioner had already received excess amount from the then JSEB. F. In the facts and circumstances stated above and in the light of the pending criminal case as well as restrictions on payments made by I.G. Vigilance, this learned council may not pass any order in the matter at present and be further dismiss the present case. G. The petitioner has allegedly defalcated huge public money and he must not be allowed to misappropriate the same without being penalized by any competent court of this land. 13. That it is submitted that as per section 18(3) of the relevant act in question if the conciliation is not successful and stands terminated without any settlement between the parties, the Council shall either itself take up the dispute for arbitration or refer it to any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services for such arbitration and the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall then apply to the dispute as if the arbitration was in pursuance of an arbitration agreement referred to in sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Act but in the present case the learned council inspite of non settlement of dispute between the parties has passed the final Award/Decree in the matter. 14. 14. That it is submitted that learned Council vide its order dated 14.07.2014 (copy supplied to petitioner vide memo no. 3976, Ranchi dated 17.10.2014) passed in Case No. JHMSEFC 03 of 2012 (M/s VEXCEL Computers Pvt. Ltd. versus General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer) directed the petitioner to pay alleged principal outstanding amount inclusive of security deposit/performance guarantee/incentive claim alongwith interest @ 3 times of bank rate of Reserve Bank of India as well as petitioner has been directed to pay compound interest with monthly interest from the date of amount due for payment to the respondent till final payment is made in total violation to the specific provisions contained in section 18(3) of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.” 8. The award dated 14th July 2014 records that the claim of the applicant was not disputed by the Nigam. Mr. Krishna Murari, the learned counsel for the applicant, submits that in the writ petition also there is no challenge by the Nigam to the claims raised by the applicant. 9. Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006 reads as under: “18. Reference to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council — (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any party to a dispute may, with regard to any amount due under section 17, make a reference to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council. (2) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the Council shall either itself conduct conciliation in the matter or seek the assistance of any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services by making a reference to such an institution or centre, for conducting conciliation and the provisions of sections 65 to 81 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to such a dispute as if the conciliation was initiated under Part III of that Act. (3) Where the conciliation initiated under sub-section (2) is not successful and stands terminated without any settlement between the parties, the Council shall either itself take up the dispute for arbitration or refer it to any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services for such arbitration and the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall then apply to the disputes as if the arbitration was in pursuance of an arbitration agreement referred to in sub-section (1) of section 7 of that Act. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council or the centre providing alternate dispute resolution services shall have jurisdiction to act as an Arbitrator or Conciliator under this section in a dispute between the supplier located within its jurisdiction and a buyer located anywhere in India. (5) Every reference made under this section shall be decided within a period of ninety days from the date of making such a reference.” 10. In view of section 18(3) of MSMED Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, AC Act) are made applicable in the proceedings before the Council. Therefore, the only issue which needs to be decided is whether the award dated 14th July 2014 is made overlooking the mandatory provisions under sub-section 3. If that is so, the writ petition would be maintainable otherwise the Nigam must follow the statutory regime. 11. The provisions of sections 15 to 23 of the MSMED Act are given overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. The MSMED Act contemplates a statutory arbitration when conciliation between the parties fails. But there are fundamental differences in the settlement mechanism under MSMED Act and AC Act. Another important difference is that if there is an award in favour of seller the same can be challenged with pre-deposit of 75% of the amount awarded. 12. It is not in dispute that a challenge to the award made by the Council is laid under section 34 of AC Act. Another important difference is that if there is an award in favour of seller the same can be challenged with pre-deposit of 75% of the amount awarded. 12. It is not in dispute that a challenge to the award made by the Council is laid under section 34 of AC Act. In “Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Directorate of Enforcement” (2010) 4 SCC 772 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievance and, that too, in a fiscal statute, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. In paragraph no. 11 of the writ petition, it is stated that on several dates argument was heard and finally the order was reserved on 14th July 2014. The Nigam filed a supplementary affidavit in the proceeding of Case No. JHMSEFC 03 of 2012 and claimed adjustment of excess payment made to M/s VXL Computers. The exception to the award dated 14th July 2014 taken by the Nigam on the ground of breach of sub-section 3 to section 18 of MSMED Act is nothing but a cloak to frustrate the object behind the MSMED Act. The veil behind the professed pretentious posture of the Nigam must be pierced to see the real intention. 13. On examination of the materials on record, I am of the definite opinion that a conciliation proceeding under sub-section 3 to section 18 of MSMED Act is not unsuccessful merely because a party to the proceeding insisted that it would make payment only after adjustment of some excess amount paid to a sister concern. Under MSMED Act, the Council discharges a statutory function. The Council is therefore required to apply its mind and take a decision on the basis of the materials laid before it. Merely because the party to the conciliation proceeding raised a frivolous objection or an objection which is extraneous to the lis pending before the Council, the conciliation proceeding does not terminate at once. Under the provisions of MSMED Act, the Council could not have acceded to insistence of the Nigam for adjustment of the excess amount paid to a sister unit of the applicant. Once the Nigam did not deny the claim of the applicant, the Council had jurisdiction to pass an award. 14. Under the provisions of MSMED Act, the Council could not have acceded to insistence of the Nigam for adjustment of the excess amount paid to a sister unit of the applicant. Once the Nigam did not deny the claim of the applicant, the Council had jurisdiction to pass an award. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, I hold that the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed, but, with liberty to the Nigam to avail of legal remedies as available to it in law.