Amit Travels vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court held that the learned Writ Court had not committed any error in relegating the petitioner to the remedy available under the MSME Act. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's claim for interest at the specified rate was admittedly payable under the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. Therefore, for the redressal of such a claim, the petitioner was required to approach the competent authority/forum established under the said Act. Since no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner to controvert the averments made in the reply filed by the respondent, and the petitioner appeared satisfied with the respondent's reply, the writ appeal was disposed of. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Travels, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to clear a claimed amount of Rs. 16,96,902/- with interest at 20.25% per annum as per the MSME Act. The learned Writ Court dismissed the petition, holding that an alternative remedy was available under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. In the present writ appeal, the respondent/State submitted that the entire amount of Rs. 16,96,902/- has been paid, with Rs. 64,644/- deducted towards GST and TDS, which are permissible. The respondent also stated that the claim for interest is payable under the MSME Act, requiring the petitioner to approach the competent authority under that Act. No one appeared for the petitioner in the writ appeal to contest the respondent's reply.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Writ Court erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, when the petitioner sought a direction for payment of a specific amount and interest? Petitioner's Contention (implied from writ petition): The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the payment of Rs. 16,96,902/- with interest at 20.25% per annum, implying that the alternative remedy under the MSME Act was either insufficient or not being effectively pursued by the respondents. Respondent's Contention: The respondent argued that the entire amount claimed has been paid, with permissible deductions for GST and TDS. They further contended that the claim for interest is squarely covered by the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, and therefore, the petitioner should have approached the competent authority under that Act for redressal, making the writ petition maintainable only on that ground.