Dismissed¶32

Rashtriyalspat Nigam Limited, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, v. The Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Mar 2026WP/18479/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati; WRIT PETITION No. 18479/2017; Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam; Rashtriyalspat Nigam Limited Visakhapatnam Steel Plant; Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council; M/s Real Fab Industries Pvt Ltd; Commissioner of Industries; State of Andhra Pradesh; Reference No.21C/IFC/2013/19226; MSMED Act, Act 27 of 2006; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Article 226 Constitution of India; writ of Mandamus; conciliation; arbitration; principles of natural justice; dismissed as infructuous; liberty to file fresh application; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application in accordance with law; no order as to costs. ¶32

Rashtriyalspat Nigam Limited, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant… — Arbitration | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application in accordance with law; no order as to costs.

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the 1st Respondent Council (Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council) and its members in abruptly and impatiently closing the hearing in Reference No.21C/IFC/2013/19226 without following the mandatory provisions of the MSMED Act and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and without deciding the claimant's entitlement and the Council's jurisdiction as a preliminary issue, was illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice. +1 more

¶30

Ratio / Principle

On the submission of counsel for the petitioner that the matter had become infructuous, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous; liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application in accordance with law, and there is no order as to costs.

¶32

Key takeaways

As a sequel to the dismissal, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 18479 of 2017 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Special Original Jurisdiction; Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam; decided 07.03.2026). Rashtriyalspat Nigam Limited, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of Mandamus against the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, alleging that the Council and its members abruptly and impatiently closed the hearing in Reference No.21C/IFC/2013/19226 without following the mandatory provisions of Section 8 182 and 3 of the MSMED Act, Act 27 of 2006 and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, without deciding jurisdiction as a preliminary issue, and in violation of principles of natural justice; the petitioner sought a direction that the Council refer the matter firstly to conciliation and, failing that, conduct arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. When the matter was taken up for hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter had become infructuous. Recording the submission, the Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous, with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application in accordance with law and no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, were ordered closed.

¶1

APHC010719902017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3504]

¶5

SATURDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 18479/2017

¶8

Between:

¶9

RASHTRIYALSPAT NIGAM LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT,, VISAKHAPATNAM, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, STEEL PLANT, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP. BY ITS ASST GENERAL MANAGER (CONSTRUCTION) SRI P L N PRASAD

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 0/O. THE COMMISSIONARATE OF INDUSTRIES, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 1 ST FLOOR, GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS BUILDINGS, MUTHYALAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA-520011.

¶13

M/S REAL FAB INDUSTRIES PVT LTD REP BY ITS MANAGING, DIRECTOR, D.NO.48-I 0-24, SRI NAGAR, DWARAKA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 016.

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 1ST FLOOR, GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS BUILDINGS, MUTHYALAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA-520011.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶19

1.A S C BOSE

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶21

1.GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE (AP)

¶22

2.RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM

¶23

The Court made the following:

¶24

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO:18479 of 2017

¶27

ORDER:-

¶28

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article

¶29

226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer:

¶30

“to issue an appropriate writ direction or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1^st Respondent Council and its members in abruptly and impatiently closing the hearing of case before it in Reference No.21C/IFC/2013/19226 without following the mandatory provisions of Section 8 182 and 3 of the MSMED Act, Act 27 of 2006 of conducting conciliation or arbitration proceedings in any manner and in not refusing even to receive or acknowledge the petitioners application to decide the plea of the claimants entitlement to bring his cause before the Council and its jurisdiction to entertain such cause and to decide the same as a preliminary issue before going into the merits of the case and in not conducting any proceedings in any judicious manner and in accordance with MSMED Act and Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as illegal arbitrary unjust and against the provisions of MSMED Act Arbitration and Conciliation Act and also in a flagrant violation of principles of natural justice apart from constitutional guarantees and to consequently direct the 1^st Respondent Council to conduct the proceedings before it in the above said case in tune with the provisions of the above said two acts in good faith and spirit by referring the matter firstly to conciliation and in case the same fails then to conduct the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996”.

¶31

When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri Vijay, learned counsel representing Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the matter has become infructuous.

¶32

Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

¶34

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall

¶35

stand closed.

¶36

____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶37

Date: 07.03.2026 KNN

¶38

¶39

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM