W.P.(C) No. 1355 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 1355 of 2026 (An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Engineer-In-Chief, Public Health (Urban) Govt of Odisha, Bhubaneswar & Anr .…… Petitioner -Versus- M/s. Porel Dass Water and Effluent Control Pvt.Ltd, West Bengal & Anr. ……. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. D.Nayak, AGA For Opposite Parties : Mr. D.P.Nanda, Sr.Advocate for O.P.1 CORAM : JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 17th February 2026 B.P. Routray,J. 1. Heard Mr. D.Nayak, learned AGA for the Petitioner and Mr. D.P.Nanda, learned Senior Counsel for Opposite Party No.1. 2. Present writ petition is directed against impugned award dated 16th April 2024 (Annexure-7) passed by the West Bengal State Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Feb-2026 16:29:32 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) No. 1355 of 2026 Page 2 of 6 Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (herein after stated in brief in short as W.B. Facilitation Council). 3. Opposite Party No.1 raised a dispute before W.B. Facilitation Council regarding execution of a work relating to “Augmentation of Water Supply to G.Udayagiri NAC” in the district of Kandhamal and according to Opposite Party No.1 some recoverable dues remain unpaid by the State-Petitioner. 4. The notice was issued at the stage of conciliation and an objection was filed by the Present Petitioner, i.e. Executive Engineer, P.H. Division, Govt. of Odisha. After the conciliation was failed the matter was referred for arbitration and Case No.239 of 2022 was registered on the file of W.B. Facilitation Council in terms of the provision contained in The Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006. Present Petitioner was the Respondent in the arbitration proceeding and he did not appear there, and simply sent a letter saying that they have already filed the reply during conciliation proceeding. The arbitration proceeding was proceeded ex-parte against present Petitioner and ultimately the award was passed on 16th April 2024 in favour of Opposite Party No.1 directing present Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,88,22,258.46/- Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Feb-2026 16:29:32 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) No. 1355 of 2026 Page 3 of 6 as on 16th April 2024, payable within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the award. 5. Present Petitioner did not take any step thereafter which compels Opposite Party No.1 to file execution proceeding before the Commercial Court, Bhubaneswar. Upon receipt of the notice of execution proceeding, objection was raised by the Petitioner with regard to jurisdiction of W.B. Facilitation Council to entertain the arbitration proceeding. It is stated that said objection is still pending consideration by the learned Executing Court. 6. Mr. Nayak, learned AGA submits on behalf of the Petitioner that since the contract is a works contract, the MSME Facilitation Council does not have any jurisdiction in terms of Section 18 of the Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 to adjudicate any dispute in that respect and the reference made to the W.B. Facilitation Council in respect of such works contract is not at all maintainable being without jurisdiction. It is further submitted by Mr. Nayak that present writ petition which is filed challenging the award passed by the W.B. Facilitation Council is well maintainable within the jurisdiction of this High Court for the reason that the work and the contract both have been executed in Odisha. Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Feb-2026 16:29:32 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) No. 1355 of 2026 Page 4 of 6 7. Mr. Nanda, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.1 raises his objection at the outset regarding maintainability of the present writ petition that an award passed by the W.B. Facilitation Council at Kolkata cannot be amenable to the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court. According to Mr. Nanda, the Petitioner has to apply before the jurisdictional High Court in order to challenge the W.B. Facilitation Council award passed at Kolkata, if he is so advised. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has never objected in their objection petition before W.B. Facilitation Council, though submitted in course of the conciliation proceeding, that the alleged contract is a works contract purely. Nowhere in their objection petition, the Petitioner has stated anything regarding nature of said contract or have raised the question of jurisdiction of the facilitation council in that respect. 8. Thus as per the contentions made at the bar by rival parties, it is found that the initial objection has been raised by Opposite Party No.1 as to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain present writ petition against the award passed by W.B. Facilitation Council. On this score, it is admitted that the impugned award under Annexure-7 passed by the W.B. Facilitation Council is an ex-parte Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Feb-2026 16:29:32 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) No. 1355 of 2026 Page 5 of 6 award where present Petitioner did not participate despite due service of notice. What is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the contract is a works contract and therefore not amenable to the jurisdiction of MSME Facilitation Council, is of course a question of fact to be determined by the competent authority looking at the nature of contract and the execution thereof. Nonetheless, present writ petition is not filed questioning the nature of contract to be interpreted, but it is directed against the award passed by W.B. Facilitation Council dated 16th April 2024. 9. Going by the territorial jurisdictional aspect of this Court, it is found prima facie that the impugned award having been passed by W.B. Facilitation Council at Kolkata, the same would have been challenged before the jurisdictional High Court having the territorial jurisdiction over the place of award. Thus, the approach of the present Petitioner to file present writ petition before this Court is not found correct because the bone of contentions of the parties would be regarding jurisdiction of W.B. Facilitation Council in respect of the contract. It would not be prudent on the part of this court to entertain the writ petition authorizing itself to exercise jurisdiction to entertain the challenge against the award passed by W.B. Facilitation Council Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Feb-2026 16:29:32 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) No. 1355 of 2026 Page 6 of 6 at Kolkata. So, this Court having found lack of territorial jurisdiction is not inclined to entertain the writ petition at the present stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach appropriate forum. 10. As prayed by Mr. Nayak, learned AGA, it is further observed that in the event, any application is preferred against the impugned award dated 16th April 2024 (Annexure-7), within a period of 45 (forty-five) days from today in the appropriate forum, no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner till such period or till filing of such application, whichever is earlier. 11. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. (B.P. Routray) Judge S.Das,Sr.Steno