1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R :::::: M/s R.K. Filling Centre Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Others S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 8239/ 2007 ......... Date of Order : 13/08/2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Dinesh Mehta for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Bhansali for the respondents. BY THE COURT By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice dated 21.11.2007 (Annex.8) issued by the respondent No.2 Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited against the petitioner company. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is having a retail petroleum outlet in the name and Style “M/s R.K.Filling Centre”. An inspection was carried out vide Annex.3 and a report was prepared, however, on taking the 2 samples the HSD tank No.01 (22 KL) sample did not meet specification as per BIS 1460-2000 w.r.t. Viscosity and the sale of the products was suspended. Subsequently, by show cause notice dated 21.11.2007 Annex.8 the petitioner was called upon to show cause within seven days as to why necessary action as deemed fit including termination be not taken against the petitioner firm. Aggrieved by the show cause notice, Annex.8, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there is an arbitration clause No. 66 in the Agreement Annex.1 arrived at between the petitioner firm and the respondent Corporation which provides that any dispute or difference of any nature whatsoever or regarding any right, liability, act omission or account of any of the parties hereto arising out of or in relation to this agreement shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Managing Director of the Corporation or of some officer of the Corporation who may be nominated by the Managing Director. The dealer will be entitled to raise any objection to any such arbitrator on the ground that the arbitrator is an officer of the Corporation or that he has to deal with the matters to which the contract relates or that in the course of his duties as an officer of the Corporation he had expressed views on all or any of the matters in dispute or difference, in the event of the arbitrator to whom the matter is originally referred being 3 transferred or vacating his office or being unable to act for any reason, the Managing Director as aforesaid at the time of such transfer, vacation of office or inability to act, shall designate another person to act as arbitrator in accordance with the terms of the agreement. From the perusal of the agreement as also show cause notice Annex.8, it is clear that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of arbitration and even otherwise, a writ against show cause notice is not maintainable. It is always open for the petitioner to appear before the respondent authorities and show cause and contest the notice. In view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, 2007 AIR SCW 607, a writ against such show cause notice does not lie. The Supreme Court held as under :- “Ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show cause notice. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority 4 concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show cause notice or charge- sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. In this view of the matter, when the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy by way of Arbitration and the fact that a writ against show cause notice being not maintainable, in my view, it is not a fit case to interfere with the show cause notice impugned exercising the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. However, it would be open for the petitioner to move before the Arbitration or to contest the notice Annex.8 before the respondent authorities. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp 5 S.B.Civil Stay Petition No. 8564/2007 In S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8239/07 Date of Order : 13/08/2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Dinesh Mehta for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Bhansali for the respondents. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, the stay petition also stands dismissed. Interim order dated 17.12.2007 stands vacated. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp