HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case: WP(C ) No. 1545/2025 UT of Jammu and Kashmir and others M ….Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through :- Ms Monika Kohli Sr. AAG V/s M/S Green IP Services Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur Through :- CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER 1 By this petition, the petitioner has assailed the award order dated 13.05.2024 passed by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, Jaipur Division-II, Rajasthan, in Case No. RJ/17/S/JPQ/0078 titled M/s Green IP Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Director General of Police, Prisons, J&K. 2 The main issue raised in the present petition pertains to the legality and propriety of the award passed by the Facilitation Council. However, upon perusal of the pleadings and the impugned order, it becomes evident that the issue sought to be agitated in the instant petition is no longer res integra. This Court has already dealt with an identical question in the case of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir vs. M/s ITL Infra Limited, decided on 21.04.2024. In the said judgment, this Court had the occasion to consider whether a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an award passed by the Facilitation Council under the MSMED Act. After a comprehensive analysis of the statutory scheme of the MSMED Act read with the Arbitration and 2 Conciliation Act, 1996, and relevant precedents of the Supreme Court, this Court held as under: “From the above, the Court has come to the conclusion that the petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India thereby challenging an award passed by the Facilitation Council under the MSMED Act is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate proceedings in terms of MSMED Act.” 3 The reason behind the above decision is that once a dispute is referred under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, it is treated as an arbitration proceeding and is governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. As a result, if a party is aggrieved by the award, the proper legal remedy is to file a petition under Section 34 of that Act before a competent court. Since this remedy is adequate and effective, a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is not maintainable unless there are exceptional circumstances, which do not exist in the present case. In the present matter, the petitioner has directly invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court challenging an award passed by the Facilitation Council, without exhausting the remedy provided under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 4 In view of the decision rendered in the case of M/s ITL Infra Limited (supra), which squarely covers the present controversy, this Court finds no justification to take a different view. Accordingly, the present writ petition is held to be not maintainable. The same is, therefore, dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail such remedies as may be available to it under law, including by invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, 3 for challenging the award passed by the Facilitation Council, if so advised. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy involved in the present case. (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE Jammu 24.07.2025. Sanjeev Whether order is reportable:Yes/No