1 / 3 2025:CGHC:840 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 16 of 2025 • M/s Anil Buildcon (India) Private Limited (CIN-U45200 CT2011 PTC022277), 104, Lovina Courts Mungeli Naka, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Email accbilaspur@Gmail.Com Through Its Authorised Director, Mr. Anil Kumar Verma S/o Late Jagdish Verma, Aged About 66 Years, R/o House No. 14/1152, Talapara Road, Vinoba Nagar, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya (New Secretariat), Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Engineer-In-Chief, Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan, Sector - 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division No.2, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgagh. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Suryapratap, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. R. K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General 2 / 3 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 07/01/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming consequential interest payable in terms of the provisions of Section 15-17 of the MSMED Act, 2006 on delayed payment of the undisputed amount already paid by the respondents. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the undisputed amount has already been paid to him by the respondents, however, the interest because of delay in payment has not been paid by the respondents/Public Works Department. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that as far as the delay and interest on the delayed payment towards the petitioner’s claim is concerned, the same cannot be decided in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even the petitioner is having an alternative remedy under the MSMED Act, 2006. He further submits that Annexure P/5 which is the part of MSMED Act, 2006 placed by the petitioner which provides that any dispute regarding the amount due, the petitioner may make a reference to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council under Section 17 of the MSMED Act, 2006. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the writ petition. 5. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is claiming interest on the delayed payment made by the respondents towards his claim, the claim of interest on delay 3 / 3 in making payment of the dues involves several disputed facts which cannot be decided in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the petitioner may approach before the appropriate authority by availing remedy provided under the MSMED Act, 2006. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to approach before the appropriate authority in accordance with law. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar