IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3969 of 2008 Date of Decision: March 14, 2008 Vipan Kumar Kamboj …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Shailender Kashyap, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing notice of termination of M&H Contract of COCO, Gumjal-1, dated 28.2.2008 (P-21) and notification No. P-19011/9/2001-IOC, dated 6.9.2006 (P-13), issued by respondent No. 1, passed by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited-respondent No. 1. A further prayer has also been made for restraining respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from terminating the contract entered into between the petitioner and the respondent company or from taking any contemplated action of termination/cancellation/suspension of sale and supply to the retail outlet/petrol pump being run by the petitioner. C.W.P. No. 3969 of 2008 On 12.10.2000 the petitioner and IBP Company Limited- respondent No. 2 entered into a contract for maintenance, handling and sale of petroleum products like petrol, high speed diesel and lubricants at the Company Owned and Company Operated (COCO) Retail Outlet, situated at village Gumjal-1, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur (P-1). IBP Company Limited-respondent No. 2 was carrying on its business of storage and marketing of petroleum products through its retail outlets throughout the country. It was later on amalgamated in the Indian Oil Corporation-respondent No. 3 (for brevity, ‘the respondent Corporation’). The Maintenance and Handling Contract (for brevity, ‘M&H contract agreement’) of the retail outlet (P-1) has been renewed from time to time. On 6.9.2006, respondent No. 1, issued a notification to the effect that permanent COCO Retail Outlets were to be operated by the oil companies through their own officers without job contractors or ad hoc dealers and the existing temporary COCO retail outlets were to be phased out within a time bound manner preferably within one year (P-13). On 28.2.2008, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 issued a notice to the petitioner showing its intention to terminate M&H contract of the COCO in question (P-21). We have heard learned counsel at a considerable length and perused various documents placed on record with his able assistance. It is admitted position that Clause 24 of the M&H Agreement, dated 12.10.2000 (P-1), entered into between the parties, provides for referring of any dispute or difference of any nature to 2 C.W.P. No. 3969 of 2008 arbitration. Clause 24 of the M&H Agreement, dated 12.10.2000 reads as under:- “24. Any dispute or difference of any nature whatsoever or regarding any right, liability, act, omission on account of any of the parties hereto arising out of or in relation to this agreement shall be referred to the sole arbitration of GM(NR) of the Company or of some officer of the Company who may be nominated by the GM (NR). The Contractor will not be entitled to raise any objection to any such arbitrator on the ground that the Arbitrator is an Officer of the Company. In the event of the Arbitrator to whom the matter is originally referred being transferred or vacating his office or being unable to act for any reason, GM(NR) aforesaid at the time of such transfer, vacation of office or inability to act, shall designate another person to act as a arbitrator in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Such person shall be entitled to proceed with reference from the point at which it was left by his predecessor. It is also a term of this contract that no person other than GM (NR) or a person nominated by such GM(NR) of the Company as aforesaid shall act as arbitrator hereunder. The award of the Arbitrator so 3 C.W.P. No. 3969 of 2008 appointed shall be final, conclusive and binding on all parties to the agreement, subject to the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory modification of or reenactment thereof and the rules made thereunder and for the time being in force shall apply to the arbitration proceedings under this clause.” Once there is arbitration clause then it is mandatory duty of the court to refer the dispute arising between the contracting parties to the Arbitrator. For the aforementioned view we place reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums (2003) 6 SCC 503. When the principles laid down in Pinkcity Midway Petroleums' case (supra) are applied to the facts of the present case, then it becomes evident that the matter is squarely covered by the aforementioned judgment. Similar views have also been expressed by a Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us (M.M. Kumar, J.) was a member, in the cases of M/s Regent Automobiles v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others (C.W.P. No. 17874 of 2007, decided on 12.2.2008) and M/s Sanjeev Auto Fuels, Dharampur, Mansa and another v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and another (C.W.P. No. 12366 of 2007, decided on 22.2.2008 In view of the aforementioned discussion we are of the considered view that the petitioner must be relegated to the remedy of 4 C.W.P. No. 3969 of 2008 arbitration. Accordingly, the petitioner is relegated to the remedy of arbitration. Before parting, we wish to make it clear that any observation made in this order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merit of the controversy between the parties by the Arbitrator who shall proceed in accordance with law independent of any influence of this order. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) March 14, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 5