IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5680 of 2009 M/S HARI PRASAD RAMAUTAR, a partnership firm having its registered office at Lohia Nagar, Supaul through its Senior Partner Govind Prasad Agrawal son of Late Jagdish Prasad Agrawal, resident of Ward No. 12 at & P.O. Supaul, P.S. Supaul, District-Supaul. ……Petitioner Versus 1. Hindustan petroleum Corporation Limited through its Chairman having its registered office at 17, Jamshed Ji Tata Road, Mumbai- 400020. 2. The General Manager(North Central Zone) M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Plot No. 01, Nehru Enclave, Gomti Nagar, Luckhnow-226010. 3. The Senior Regional Manager (Retail), M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bungalow Road, Patna-800001. 4. The Area Sales Manager (Begusarai Region), M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 6th Floor Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglaow Road, Patna. 5. The SGS India Pvt Ltd, Kapoor Niwas, Telephone Exchange Road, Dhanbad. ……..Respondents. ----------- 05. 13.01.2010 The cancellation of petrol pump of the petitioner in question and the termination of the agreement communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure-10 dated 26.03.2009 is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ application. One of the reasons for the termination is the failure of the HSD sample which was collected from tank No. 1 and non provision of the TT sample for testing by the petitioner. Much submissions have been made on the validity of the decision taken against the petitioner as well as non compliance of the MGD guidelines by the Corporation 2 before passing the impugned order but the Court is not willing to go into all those aspects of the matter for the obvious reason that the order of termination also talks in terms of breach of various clauses of the agreement. The dealership agreement has also categorically provided for settlement of dispute and differences in relation to the agreement by invoking the process of arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The relevant clause is Clause 66. In view of the above, the petitioner is relegated or is advised to raise an arbitration in terms of Clause 66 and seek appropriate response on all the questions which may be incorporated in terms of reference. Since it is a question of livelihood of petitioner an early adjudication would be in the interest of the company as well as the petitioner. It is also recorded that the respondent Corporation will not aggravate the matter further in furtherance to the cancellation order contained in Annexure- 10. The writ application is disposed off with the above observation and liberty. Shageer (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)