CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1634 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1634 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 13, 2011 Vivek Bajaj .....Petitioner VERSUS Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has aggrieved against the order whereby his LPG Distributorship under the name and style of M/s Shaurya Indane Service at Phagwara-I has been terminated. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow him the distributorship and also to supply him the copy of the CBI, investigation report. Concededly, there is an arbitration clause, which is an efficacious alternative remedy available to him, which the petitioner can easily invoke. The counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation has placed reliance on Munish Gupta Versus Union of India, (P&H) (DB), 2009(1) R.C.R. (Civil) and M/s CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1634 of 2010 -2- Regent Automobiles Versus 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) RC.R. (Civil) 151. It is clearly held that where there is an agreement between the parties 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 petitioner. 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. The petitioner would be at liberty to seek interim relief from the arbitrator. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. January 13, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE