1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1042 OF 2024 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the Judgment in W.P.No. 11404 of 2024 dated 21-08-2024, on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. The Commissioner of School Education, Department of School Education, State of Andhra Pradesh, No 7104, Block B, Anjaneya Towers, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Amaravati. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Finance, Rep by its Principal Secretary, 1st Floor, 2nd Block, A P, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of School Education, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathj Guntur District. 4. The Comprehensive Financial Management System, Rep by its Chief Executive Officer, Department of Finance and Planning, State of Andhra Pradesh, 6th Floor, C Block, Anjaneya Towers, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District. ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS AND M/s. S K Bikes Private Limited, (CIN) U35921PB2001PTC024846, registered address. D-233-234, Phase-VII, Focal Point, Ludiana, PB-141010, Rep by uts Authorised Representative, Mr. Sachin Lakra as Executive Director. ...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in WP.No.11404/2024, dated 21-08-2024 pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Appellant: ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondents: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI The Court made the following: JUDGMENT APHC010571812024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3483] WRIT APPEAL NO: 1042/2024 Between: The Commissioner Of School Education and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND S K Bikes Private Limited ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent: 1.ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 20.01.2025 JUDGMENT (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Challenging the orders dated 21.08.2024 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 11404 of 2024, the respondents therein, preferred this intra court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. 2. Through the impugned order, the writ petition filed by respondent herein questioning the inaction of appellant no.l in disbursing the amount as .WA-9>fo.l042 of2024 2 per award passed by the District-Level Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Ludiana; was disposed of directing appellant no.2 to issue appropriate orders, as per award dated 13.10.2022, within two (02) weeks. 3. The facts that led to filing of this writ appeal, in brief, are that, the respondent was awarded with the tender for supply of bicycles as per the welfare scheme of the Government introduced vide G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 23.07.2016, and accordingly it had supplied bicycles and as the amount payable for supply of bicycles was not released by the authorities, the respondent approached District-Level Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Ludiana, which had passed an award dated 13.10.2022, directing the authorities to pay the award amount within one month, else, the amount carries interest till date of realization as per section 31(7-B) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. As the authorities did not pay the amount, the respondent filed the writ petition. 4. The learned single Judge upon considering the contents of paragraph-7 of the counter-affidavit of appellant no.l that bills are pending for clearance with the Comprehensive Financial Management System, and due .WA.!Nb.l042 of2024 3 to administrative reasons the bills were re-tokened as token No.2024-444504; having held that there is no dispute with regard to the amount payable to the petitioner; disposed of the writ petition as indicated supra. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents in the writ petition preferred this writ appeal. 6. Heard learned Advocate General for appellants and Sri K.S.Murthy, learned senior counsel for respondent/writ petitioner. 7. The learned Advocate General while reiterating the contents of the writ appeal, would further contend that Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a complete Code and it did contain a mechanism for execution of the awards passed under the said Act in the form of Section 36 of the Act and, therefore, in view of the observations made in /VHAI vs. Sheeta! Jaidev Vade^, since the writ petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy to execute the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, the writ petition is not maintainable. However, the learned single Judge without giving a reasonable opportunity and without properly appreciating the fact that State of Andhra Pradesh is not '.(2022)16 see 391 1042 of2024 4 made as a party to the writ petition and contrary to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision referred to supra, disposed of the writ petition, instead of dismissing it. The learned Advocate General would further contend that in the counter-affidavit, the appellants had admitted for payment of interest. The arbitral tribunal lacks jurisdiction, since the same can exercise jurisdiction in relation to the micro-enterprises whose annual turnover is less than Rs.50 crores, whereas the annual turnover of the writ petitioner company is stated to be Rs.325 crores as per their own correspondence. The learned single judge failed to see that the principal amount of Rs.70,11,03,328/- suggests that the writ petitioner became a medium enterprise and thus the arbitral tribunal lacks jurisdiction to pass award. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. never 8. On the other hand, Sri K.S.Murthy, learned senior counsel would contend that Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to proceedings for enforcement of Arbitral award and therefore, the appellants are debarred from questioning the enforceability of arbitral award. Admittedly, the appellants have not questioned the arbitral award taking recourse to the procedure contemplated under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation n .WA7^o.1042 of2024 5 Act and hence the questions regarding enforceability of an award cannot be allowed to be raised. Therefore, the appellants are debarred from questioning the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. The learned senior counsel would further contend that consequent to failure of the authorities in payment of the amount awarded by the arbitral tribunal despite making representations in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, the respondent left with no other option, filed the writ petition and the learned single Judge upon considering the admission made by appellants regarding the amount payable to the respondent, had rightly directed the appellants to pay the amount by fixing a reasonable time frame and there are no valid grounds for this Court to interfere with the orders impugned. The writ appeal being meritless is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ appeal. 9. In reply, the learned Advocate General would submit that mere non- filing of appeal against the arbitral award would not take away the right of the appellants to question the competence of the arbitral tribunal and executability of the award, whenever the same is sought to be executed. \ n \ '.WA3fo.l042 of2024 10. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. The Writ Petition is filed questioning the inaction of appellant no.l in disbursing the amount as per award dated 13.10.2022 of the District-Level Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation council, Ludiana. There is no dispute regarding the principal amount due payable to the writ petitioner. The appellants denied to have admitted in the counter of their liability to pay interest. 12. In view of the specific contention of the appellants regarding maintainability of the writ petition, it would be appropriate to decide the said issue before embarking upon the other issues raised by the learned counsel for the parties. 13. In NHAI V. Sheeta! Jaidev Vade^, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the orders passed by the High Court directing the authorities to pay the amount covered under the award passed by the arbitral tribunal, held thus: '.(2022) 16 see 391 : 2022 SCC Online SC 1070 at page 394 .WJl.!Nb.l042 of2024 1 "11. Therefore, once the original writ petitioner was having an efficacious, alternative remedy to execute the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court, by initiating an appropriate execution proceeding before the competent executing court, the High Court ought to have relegated the original writ petitioners to avail the said remedy instead of entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was filed to execute the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal/Court . If the High Courts convert itself to the executing court and entertain the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to execute the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal/Court, the High Courts would be flooded with the writ petitions to execute awards passed by the learned arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal/Arbitral Court." 14. Placing reliance on the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to supra, this Court allowed the writ appeal vide W.A.Nq.1170 of 2023 vide orders dated 26.12.2023, while setting aside the orders passed by the learned single Judge, leave is granted to the parties to avail the remedies before the appropriate forum. 15. The facts of the present case are almost similar to the facts of the cases covered by the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, but for the fact that the appellants herein did not challenge the arbitral award by taking recourse to section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. However, the fact remains is that the writ petition was filed for execution of the award passed by an Arbitral Tribunal. ‘.WAMo.1042 of2024 16. In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision referred to supra, since the original writ petitioner is having an efficacious, alternative remedy to execute the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, by initiating an appropriate execution proceeding before the competent executing court; the writ petition seeking to enforce the award passed by Arbitral Tribunal is not maintainable. 17. It is surfaced during the course of arguments that the principal amount due was paid to the respondent/writ petitioner. According to the appellants, the writ petitioner is not entitled for interest, however, the arbitral tribunal granted interest. Whereas, as per the appellants, the arbitral tribunal that had passed the award inherently lacks jurisdiction and therefore, the award is unenforceable and thus the same cannot be executed. 18. In view of the observations made supra that writ petition filed seeking to enforce the award is not maintainable; the other aspects raised by the learned counsel for appellants questioning the award, cannot be gone into by this Court and the appellants can agitate the said aspects by taking recourse to Section 34 of the Arbitration and ConciliationAct. n .^^.^0.1042 of2024 9 19. In the above view of the matter, this writ appeal is allowed. The respondent is at liberty to enforce the arbitral award by initiating execution proceedings as stipulated under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It is left open to the appellants to assail the arbitral award taking recourse to Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR /^ECTli OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. M/s. S K Bikes Private Limited, (CIN) U35921PB2001PTC024846 14^10iT Rpn'^hu^^t' '^ocal Point, Ludiana, PB- 141010, Rep by Its Authorised Representative, Mr. Sachin Lakra Executive Director. ^ Education, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 3. OneGC to Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri K S Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] ^ [OUT]^^^ Advocate General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 6. Three CD Copies as TF 0 HIGH COURT DATED:20/01/2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.1042 of 2024 ANDW^ 2 5 FEB 2025 o to- ^ . Current Section ALLOWING THE W.A., WITHOUT COSTS