IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14000 of 2010 Dharm Vardhan Prasad, S/o Shri Yogendra Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Belwanna, P.S. Motihari (Town), Distt.- East Champaran …………………. Petitioner Versus 1. The Indian Oil Corporation through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, having its registered office at G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra East Mumbai – 400055 2. General Manager & Deputy General Manager, through its State office, Indian Oil Corporation, 5th Floor, Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Bhawan, Dakbunglow Road, Patna, P.S. Kotwali District- Patna 3. Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, having its Divisional Office at 3A, Maurya Lok Complex, Dakbunglow Road, Patna, P.S. Kotwali, District- Patna 4. Sr. Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, having its Divisional Office at Krishna Complex, Akhra Ghat Road, Muzaffarpur 5. Sale Officer, Indian Oil Corporation, Champaran Commercial Agency, Balua Chowk, P.S. Motihari (Town) District- East Champaran at Motihari 6. Business Manager, Swagat Retail Outlet, N.H. 28 Pipra Kothi, Police Station Pipra Kothi, District- East Champaran at Motihari 7. Rajeev Ranjan, son of Shri Rameshwar Prasad Ramesh fueling Station, Bettiah, P.S. Bettiah Town and District- West Champaran at Bettiah ……………. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: M/s. Rajnandan Prasad and Prabhakar Singh, Advocates For the Corporation: M/s. Kali Das Chatterji and Amlesh Kumar Verma, Advocates. ----------- 2. 27.8.2010 The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the notice dated 30.7.2010 issued by Respondent No.4, Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Muzaffarpur by which the petitioner has been given one month’s notice in terms 2 of Clause 2 of the agreement dated 18.9.2006 terminating the same and for further consequential reliefs. The petitioner is a service provider of the respondent-Corporation operating retail outlet Swagat. On the basis of advertisement published in daily newspaper in 2006 agreement dated 18.9.2006 was executed between the parties. Upon the respondents’ fresh notification for appointment of new service provider, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing CWJC No. 11509 of 2010 which had been dismissed by order dated 28.7.2010 holding that it is open to the Corporation to proceed ahead for appointment of fresh service provider in terms of the guidelines issued by the Central Government and mere taking of such action does not give any right to the petitioner and his only right is that his agreement should not be terminated without giving one month’s notice. It was further made clear in the said order that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any action of the respondent- authorities pertaining to his agreement, he shall be free to invoke his right under Clause 62 of the agreement 3 pertaining to arbitration. Thereafter the authorities issued one month’s notice terminating the agreement. The said termination is pursuant to the Clause 2 of the agreement which the petitioner had entered into with open eyes which gave right to the authorities of the Corporation ( and also to the petitioner) to terminate the contract by giving one month’s notice although it was otherwise for five years. Learned counsel for the petitioner supports his stand on the basis of Clause 48 which also provides for termination of the agreement by the Corporation upon happening of certain events. In my view the claim made by the petitioner is purely dependent upon the terms and conditions of the contract and does not involve any public law rights of the petitioner. In the said circumstances, the proper remedy of the petitioner appears to be by invoking the arbitration clause under the contract. In any view of the matter, the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be agitated in writ proceedings. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. S. Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)