Telangana High Court
Sri Kalimi Agrotech vs The State Of Telangana on 21 January, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION NO.17099 OF 2023 ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus
to declare the inaction of the 3rd respondent in paying the amounts due
to the petitioner towards the supply of seeds of Bengal gram, Soya beans
and Groundnuts under agreements during the Rabi 2018-2019 and 2019-
2020 as illegal and arbitrary and to consequently direct the 3rd
respondent to pay the sum of Rs.1,93,93,055/- together with interest
under Section 16 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
Development Act, 2006 (for short, ‘the MSMED Act‘) and to pass such
other order or orders.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is
a Multi State Co-operative Institution established in the year 1949 and is
catering to the needs of the State for supply of seeds, fertilizers and
other agricultural inputs and marketing infrastructure to the Departments
of Horticulture, Agriculture and Marketing and that the State
Government has nominated the 3rd respondent as its Nodal Agency for
supply of various items to the Departments of the State Government to
W.P.No.17099 of 2023
2
procure various materials/articles/services from the 3rd respondent.
Therefore, the 3rd respondent is a State within the meaning of Article 12
of the Constitution of India and is amenable to writ jurisdiction.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner has entered into agreements with
the 3rd respondent during the Rabi 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 for supply
of seeds of Soya beans, Bengal gram and Groundnut and is registered as
a MSME under the MSMED Act in the year 2012 and has supplied
different quantities of seeds to the 3rd respondent and the total value of
the same is Rs.4,11,16,627/- and the petitioner was paid a sum of
Rs.1,52,67,313/- up to 10.03.2021 and the outstanding balance is
Rs.1,98,49,314/-. It is submitted that the petitioner has thereafter
received a sum of Rs.2,78,055/- and Rs.1,78,200/- on 27.06.2023 and
the balance amount of Rs.1,93,93,059/- is still payable and since the 3rd
respondent is not responding, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, however,
objected to the maintainability of the Writ Petition. It is submitted that
the Writ Petition is filed by the sole Proprietor and not by the institution
and therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable under MSMED Act.
It is submitted that the petitioner has not exhausted the remedies
available to it under law and that under Section 18 of the MSMED Act,
W.P.No.17099 of 2023
3
the petitioner ought to have approached the competent authority, i.e., the
Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council to initiate conciliation
proceedings and to address its grievance as the matter pertains to
recovery of the amount due. It is further submitted that the Writ Petition
appears to be for settlement of contractual obligation and not any
statutory obligation on the part of the respondents and therefore, the
Writ Petition is not maintainable.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Zonal Manager,
Central Bank of India Vs. Devi Ispat Limited and others1 in support
of his contentions about the maintainability of the Writ Petition. He also
referred to Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act,
2006 and Section 16 thereof for rate of interest along with the date from
which such interest is payable.
6. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, however, relied upon
the following judgments in support of his contentions and also on
Sections 17 and 18 of the MSMED Act for availability of effective
remedy.
1
(2010) 11 SCC 186
W.P.No.17099 of 2023
4
(1) Svapn Constructions Vs. IDPL Employees Co-operative
Group Housing Society Ltd., and others 2.
(2) Miraj Marketing Corporation Vs. Vishaka Engineering and
another3.
7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,
this Court finds that the petitioner is a proprietary concern and has filed
the Writ Petition in the name of the company which has entered into
agreements with the 3rd respondent and is represented by its Sole
Proprietor. Therefore, the objection of the 3rd respondent about the
maintainability of the Writ Petition because it has been filed by the Sole
Proprietor is not sustainable.
8. As regards the other objections about the alternative and effective
remedy being available under the MSMED Act and that it is the
contractual obligation which is allegedly as not being honoured and
therefore writ is not maintainable, this Court finds that the 3rd
respondent is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India and any agreement with the 3rd respondent for
discharge of its contractual or statutory obligation can be sought to be
2
2005 SCC OnLine Del 1392 : (2006) 127 DLT 80
3
2005 (79) DRJ 209 (DB)
W.P.No.17099 of 2023
5
enforced by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner supports the case of the petitioner, while the decisions relied
upon by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent are distinguishable on
facts. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petition is
maintainable.
9. The respondents are therefore directed to consider the request of
the petitioner for payment of the balance consideration and pass
appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner after due
verification of records. The respondents are directed to pass necessary
orders within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
10. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
11. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall
stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 21.01.2025
Svv
[ad_1]
Source link