CWP No. 17443 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17443 of 2009 Date of decision January 11, 2010 M/s Niranjan Singh and sons ....... Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Vipul Dharmani, Advocate for the petitioner. **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The writ petition challenges the decision to cancel the dealership of the petitioner by the proceedings of the third respondent. The dealership rights have been secured through a memorandum of agreeement made between the parties on 4.6.2004. Clause 69 of the said agreement provides under the mechanism for settlement that “any dispute of difference of any nature whatsoever or regarding any right, liability, act, omission or account of any of the parties hereto arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Director Marketing of the Cooperation who may be nominated by the Director Marketing--------”. The complaint of the petitioner is that the cancellation of the agreement has been on wholly arbitratory reasons and a right to remedy through arbitrator will avail to him no more than a claim for damages. Indeed the question for specific enforcement of a contract of agency is not available, prima facie, on account of statutory mandate through Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It has been held in several decisions that there cannot be a specific enforcement of a contract of agency. The same principle will apply to this case as well and the petitioner shall have other remedy against the alleged illegal termination of CWP No. 17443 of 2009 2 the contract of agency of the petrol outlet and the remedy by means under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not avail to the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner argues that the cancellation of the contract of agency amounts to violation of fundamental right for which remedy under Article 226 will always be available. A written contract that spells out a mechanism for resolution of dispute cannot be skirted for whatever reason by a writ petition. The dismissal of the writ petition is not to state that the petitioner has no remedy for alleged infringement of fundamental right. This is only to deflect the petitioner to an appropriate remedy by recourse of procedure under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the alternative being more efficacious the public law remedy under Article 226 is denied to him. 2. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 11, 2010 archana