“10. The contention regarding the jurisdiction of the 1st and 2nd respondents to pass Ext P19 and P20 were raised and argued in detail in the earlier writ petition, even though those orders were not produced in that case. A perusal of Ext P21 judgment, it is clear that this Court allowed the petitioner to raise the contention based on his application under Sec.16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the 2nd respondent and it is also observed that the 2nd respondent will do the needful, after hearing the parties, in accordance to law. This Court also observed that the petitioner is also free to raise the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to invoke the powers under Sec. 18 of the MSME Act before that authority itself and it is also observed that the 1st respondent will consider the same, if it has the jurisdiction to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance to law. The 1st direction in Ext.P21 judgment is to issue a copy of the order to the petitioner, which was passed under Sec.18(3) of the MSME Act referring the issue for arbitration. It seems that the 1st respondent obeyed the direction and issued the orders, which is produced as Exts.P19 and P20. No liberty is granted in Exhibit P 21 judgement to challenge Exts.P19 and P20 before this court again when those orders are received from the 1st respondent. This Court allowed the petitioner to raise their contentions before the 1st and 2nd respondent as evident by the direction Nos. 2 and 3 in Ext.P21 judgment. In other words the challenge against Ext P19 and P20 were not entertained in the earlier case and the petitioner was allowed to raise it before the 1st and 2nd respondents. Admittedly, Ext.P21 judgment became final. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot approach this Court again with almost similar prayers, especially when there is no such liberty granted to the petitioner to challenge the orders again. Therefore the first prayer in this writ petition cannot be entertained.
