CWP No.5900 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.5900 of 2009 Date of Decision: 16.12.2010 **** Harigarh Petro Pump . . . . Petitioner VS. Union of India & Ors. . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Pawan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. SK Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for respondents No.2&3 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is aggrieved by cancellation of his dealership of retail outlet situated on Sangrur- Barnala road. (2). It is the conceded position that the allotment letter, which is a binding contract between the parties, contains an arbitration clause and all the disputes arising out of the said agreement are referable to the Arbitrator for adjudication. (3). In the light of the view taken by two Division Benches of this Court in (i) Munish Gupta v. Union of India and others, 2009(1)RCR (Civil) 365; and (ii) M/s. Regent Automobiles v. Indian Oil Corporation CWP No.5900 of 2009.doc - 2 – Limited and others, 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 752, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Corporation to refer the dispute to its Director (Marketing) for arbitration, who may himself adjudicate the dispute or appoint any other Officer of the Corporation as the Sole Arbitrator. (4). The Arbitrator shall decide the dispute preferably within a period of three months from the date the petitioner files its claim. (5). Till the matter is decided by the Arbitrator, the ad interim direction issued vide order dated 14.10.2010 shall continue to operate. (6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 16.12.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE