1. Heading of the Order

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 30830 of 2024
Case Title: The Collector and District Mission Director vs. The Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chhattisgarh & Anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date of Order: 20 January 2026

Citation: The Collector and District Mission Director vs. The Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 30830 of 2024, Order dated January 20, 2026 (Supreme Court of India).

2. Relevant Laws and Statutes

• The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act): The entire proceeding originates from the statutory framework of this Act. Specifically, the order implicates the roles and functions of the Facilitation Council as established under the Act.

• Sections 18 and 21 of the MSMED Act: These sections govern the process of conciliation and arbitration by the Facilitation Council. The core legal controversy pertains to the institutional setup and permissible functions under these provisions.

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: The principles of arbitration, particularly those concerning neutrality and impartiality of arbitrators, are indirectly engaged through the interpretation of the MSMED Act's framework.

3. Basic Order Details

• Nature of Proceeding: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

• Impugned Order: Challenge to the judgment and order dated 10.07.2024 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Appeal No. 427 of 2024.

• Appearance:
  For Petitioner(s): Mr. R.K. Pande, Advocate; Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate; Mr. Prashant Kumar Umrao, AOR.
  For Respondent(s): Ms. Ayushma Awasthi, AOR; Mr. Akshay Goel, Advocate.

• Final Outcome: The SLP was not dismissed but was directed to be tagged with a pending Civil Appeal for a conjoint hearing.

4. Concise Statement of Facts
The petitioner, The Collector and District Mission Director, is a party to a dispute that fell within the jurisdiction of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.1). The specific factual matrix of the underlying commercial dispute is not detailed in this procedural order. The legal challenge reached the Supreme Court by way of this Special Leave Petition against an order of the Chhattisgarh High Court.

5. Core Legal Issue Before the Supreme Court
Whether the special leave petition raises a substantive legal question that is already pending resolution before a larger Bench of the Supreme Court, thereby necessitating a coordinated judicial approach.

6. Ratio Decidendi and Judicial Reasoning
The Supreme Court, in its reasoning, did not adjudicate on the merits of the case. Instead, it made a procedural determination based on judicial discipline and efficiency. The ratio decidendi is as follows:

• Identification of a Pending Substantive Question: The Court noted that a specific and pivotal legal question—"whether the same members of the Facilitation Council under the MSMED Act, 2006, can undertake conciliation proceedings and, upon failure thereof, act as Arbitrators"—was already under consideration by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court. This referral was made by a 3-Judge Bench via an order dated 22.01.2025 in *Civil Appeal No. 1016/2025 (M/s. Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited vs. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Another)*.

• Acknowledgment of Identity of Issues: The Court observed that the "very same question" that was pending before the larger Bench also arose for consideration in the instant special leave petition. This identity of legal issues is central to the Court's decision.

• Decision for Conjoint Hearing: Given that the resolution of the core legal issue in the pending Civil Appeal would directly govern and dispose of the central controversy in this SLP, the Court exercised its administrative and procedural authority. It directed the Registry to tag this SLP along with the pending Civil Appeal No. 1016/2025 for a conjoint hearing. This ensures uniformity, avoids the possibility of contradictory rulings, and promotes judicial economy.

7. In-Depth Analysis: The Core Principle of Judicial Coordination and Deference

Title: Awaiting Authoritative Clarity: The Supreme Court’s Procedural Deference to a Larger Bench on a Substantive Legal Impasse

This order is a prime example of the Supreme Court managing its docket with discipline and foresight. The core of the order addresses procedural harmonization in the face of a unresolved, substantive legal question of significant import.

The Supreme Court deliberately sidestepped any ruling on the merits of the petitioner's grievances. Instead, it identified that the case's fate is entirely contingent upon the resolution of a broader, seminal legal debate concerning the institutional integrity of the MSMED dispute resolution mechanism. The question of whether conciliators can morph into arbitrators touches upon fundamental principles of natural justice, impartiality, and the structural fairness of a statutory forum.

By choosing to tag this case with the already-referred matter, the Court demonstrates:

1. Judicial Economy and Avoidance of Prolixity: It prevents duplicate arguments and saves judicial time by ensuring the common legal issue is argued once before a Bench of appropriate strength.

2. Prevention of Conflicting Precedents: It eliminates the risk of a two-judge bench making an observation that could later be at odds with the ruling of a larger, constitutionally stronger bench. This upholds the hierarchy and consistency of precedent (stare decisis).

3. Acknowledgment of the Issue's Complexity: The referral to a larger bench itself signifies that the question is substantial, complex, and requires elaborate consideration. Tagging related cases acknowledges this complexity and ensures all similar disputes are settled under one authoritative pronouncement.

4. Procedural Fairness to Parties: While it delays a final outcome for the petitioner, it ensures their case will be decided in line with a settled, authoritative interpretation of the law, rather than a potentially interim or less definitive view.

The order, therefore, is less about the dispute between the Collector and the Council, and more about the Supreme Court's institutional role in ensuring that foundational legal issues are resolved systematically, authoritatively, and uniformly for all similarly placed litigants.

8. Final Outcome and Directions

• Tagging Direction: The Special Leave Petition was not dismissed. The Supreme Court issued a directive to the Registry to tag and list this SLP (No. 30830/2024) alongside Civil Appeal No. 1016/2025 for a conjoint hearing before the larger Bench.

• Disposal of Interlocutory Applications: All pending Interlocutory Applications (IAs Nos. 55515/2025, 279514/2024, and 290926/2024) stood disposed of as a consequence of this procedural order.

• Future Proceedings: The substantive hearing on the legal issue, as well as the merits of this petition, is deferred to be taken up by the larger Bench in the tagged proceedings.