HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.A.NO.213 OF 2010 DATED: 13.04.2010 Between: Indian Oil Corporation and others .. Appellants And M/s Rohini Teja Indane Gas Distribution .. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.A.NO.213 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao,J) Heard Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri P.Veera Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and at their request, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal. 2. The appellant, who is the Indian Oil Corporation and being the respondent in the writ petition, filed this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters of Patent against the interim stay granted by the learned Single Judge in W.P.M.P.No.3636 of 2010. 3. The main submission urged on behalf of the appellant is that having regard to the allegations contained in the impugned order of termination and also taking into consideration of the allegations contained in the show cause notice vis-a-vis the final orders passed, there is absolutely no ground to interfere, nor this Court can show any indulgence in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially as against the impugned order of termination. That apart, the learned counsel has pointed out that there is a specific Clause i.e., Clause No. 37(a) of the agreement containing reference to arbitration for any dispute and hence, the writ petitioner ought to have availed the same instead of approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Repelling this contention, the contention on behalf of the respondent was to the effect that the findings in the impugned order are different from that of the charges in the show cause notice and apparently the termination of dealership is for extraneous reasons. He further stated that before conducting inventory, no opportunity was given. Considering these circumstances, the learned single Judge initially granted interim order of stay and later made the same absolute. 5. Having considered the arguments and also taking into consideration of the fact that the orders appealed against are only interlocutory in nature and the writ petition is coming up for hearing on 02.06.2010, we do not wish to go into the merits of the case. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that there are no merits in the appeal. 7. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO __________________ R. KANTHA RAO,J Date:13.04.2010 Kvrm/ccm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.A.NO.213 OF 2010 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao,J) DATED: 13.04.2010