IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15139 of 2007 M/S MARUTI SERVICE STATION, INDUSTRIAL AREA BARAUNI DISTT- BEGUSARAI, THROUGH ARUN KUMAR SINGH, S/O LATE VISHWANATH SINGH, R/O VILL- DIHAT, PS-BARAUNI,DISTT-BEGUSARAI--PETITIONER Versus 1. M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 17 JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 2. THE G.M. (EASTERN ZONE) HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. 6 CHURCH LANE KOLKATTA-700001 3. THE SR. REGIONAL MANAGER (RETAIL), HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. 6TH FL,OOR LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, DAK BUNGLOW ROAD, PATNA 4. REPRESENTATIVE, M/S SGS INDIA PVT. LTD. BHARHARA HOUSE, PATNA-----------------RESPONDENTS. ----------- 4 30 /7/2010 Petitioner M/s Maruti Service Station is a retail outlet located in the Industrial Area of Barauni in the district of Begusarai. The retail outlet in question is operating under the respondent Corporation brand, namely, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. Initially the writ was filed to restrain the respondent Corporation from interfering with the sales and supply. On an inspection carried out on 28.7.2007 certain sample failed in marker test meaning thereby that the sample tested was adulterated. Subsequently I.A. No. 7030 of 2007 has been filed bringing on record the communication dated 27.11.2007 by virtue of which the petitioner’s dealership stands terminated. Annexure-14 is the termination order. In support of the writ application many a submissions have been made including the assertion that the inspection or the sample drawn and tested was done in breach of Marketing Discipline Guidelines. The stand of the Corporation however is that there - 2 - was nothing wrong in the manner in which the inspection was carried out. In fact, the failure in adhering to the Marketing Discipline Guidelines was on the part of the petitioner as tanklorry retention sample was not properly maintained. There are reasons and there is detailed narration of such reasons in the order of termination which has been challenged in the present writ application. It is also urged that the dealership agreement is based on a contractual agreement and the termination of dealership is for breach of certain clauses. Since it is a matter of contract, the parties would be governed by its terms and the remedy for the petitioner does not lie in the writ application. There is no denial of this fact that the dealership being run by the petitioner is an outcome of the dealership agreement entered between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation. The reason for termination is invocation of several clauses and the provisions of the dealership agreement. The same dealership agreement also provides for an arbitration clause. Since there is provision for arbitration, the Court would be inclined to compel the parties to first exhaust the remedy which is provided for in the agreement itself. The Court is in agreement with the submission of learned counsel representing the Corporation that keeping in view Clause 68 of the dealership agreement which provides for arbitration, let the petitioner first invoke that clause of the agreement. This Court at this stage would not like to exercise its - 3 - jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court has intentionally refrained from going into the merits of the matter since it may cause prejudice either in favour or against the parties to the dispute. This writ application is disposed of with the above liberty to petitioner to first exhaust the remedy as per Clause 68 of the dealership agreement. It is also clarified that in view of this order the respondent Corporation would not raise any objection with regard to limitation or delay in raising the arbitration dispute. This writ application stands disposed with the above liberty. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)