IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 2539 of 2010 Date of decision: 12.01.2011 M/s Jai Durga Filling Station and others ...Petitioners Versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Sanjeev Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for the respondents. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioners have filed this writ petition to challenge order dated 01.02.2010 whereby his retail outlet has been terminated. As per the petitioner, this has been done in an arbitrary manner. The counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation placed reliance on Munish Gupta V. Union of India, (P&H)(DB) 2009 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) and M/s Regent Automobiles v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others 2008 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 752 to say that the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy of seeking arbitration. This Court in the cases of Munish Gupta and M/s Regent Automobiles (supra) has held that the writ petition would not be maintainable where there is alternative remedy of seeking arbitration. Similar is the view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Empire Jute Co. Ltd. and others versus The Jute Corporation of India Ltd. And another 2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 151. It is clearly held that where there is an agreement between the parties Civil Writ Petition No. 2539 of 2010 -2- containing arbitration clause to resolve the disputes through arbitrator, the court should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to enter into the dispute and that the judicial review vested in the superior courts may have vital amplitude but the same should not be exercised when there exists an arbitration clause. Accordingly, the writ petition would not be maintainable in view of the alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioners. If so advised, the petitioner may invoke the alternative remedy of seeking arbitration as the arbitrator would have wide power and jurisdiction to go into all the disputes including the disputes regarding the termination of the retail outlet. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners makes a grievance that the security of the petitioners is lying with the respondent-Corporation and their retail outlet is allotted to the adhoc dealer. The petitioners may apply for release of their security, which shall be considered and released in case, it cannot be legally held back on any ground that would be available with the respondent- Corporation. January 12, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE