IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO : 875 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 11/07/2008 in WP No:3824 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Indian Oild Corporation Limited, Rep. by Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Divisional Office: G.V.R. Towers, 3rd Floor, Bharathi Nagar, Ring Road, Vijayawada-520 008 ..... APPELLANT AND M/s. E. Satyanarayana & Co. Indian Oil Dealer, Nalgonda Road, Miryalaguda-508 207 Nalgonda District, Rep. by its Managing Partner E. Dhanunjaya .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: MR.R.RAGHUNANDAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.KAMLAKAR The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao) Heard Sri R. Raghunandan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Sri P. Kamalakar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and at their request, the main appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, who is the respondent in the writ petition, ﬁled the present appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3824 of 2008 wherein the writ petition ﬁled by the respondent herein was allowed setting aside the impugned order remanding the matter back to the respondent enabling it to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders. The respondent herein ﬁled the writ petition inter alia seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the order Ref.VJR:NG:3 dated 14.02.2008 of the Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited as illegal and void. The brief facts, which gave raise to the above proceedings, are that the Indian Oil Corporation Limited entered into dealership agreement dated 23.09.2007 with the petitioner company. However in the inspection conducted on 23.05.2007 the Corporation found certain irregularities and accordingly show cause notice dated 18.07.2007 was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed terminating the dealership of the petitioner mainly on the ground that contrary to Clause-47(ii) of the agreement, the dealer has engaged some other person for running the retail outlet. Challenging the said proceedings the petitioner ﬁled the above writ petition. The learned Single Judge after going through the respective submissions advanced by both the parties, observed that the main ground for cancellation of the agreement is that contrary to Clause-47(ii) of the Agreement, the dealer has engaged some other person for running the retail outlet but relevant clause-47(ii) was not at all mentioned either in the show cause notice or in the termination order. A perusal of the show cause notice, explanation and the termination order go to show that the respondent Corporation did not consider any of the contentions explained in the explanation and passed the termination order without considering the meticulous explanation submitted by the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry and without ﬁnding of genuineness or otherwise of the so called Power of Attorney and lease agreement, which is illegal and arbitrary, and accordingly allowed the writ petition setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter back to the respondent for enabling it to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and by considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-Corporation ﬁled the present writ appeal. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and having perused the material available on record, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge where the matter has to be reconsidered on every aspect after taking into consideration the respective pleas and arguments on both sides after giving fair opportunity to the respondent herein. However, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that having regard to the speciﬁc clause in the agreement about the arbitration, the respondent as well can seek arbitration instead of approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Having considered the said plea, we are also of the view that the parties are at liberty to approach the arbitrator, who can pass appropriate orders after giving opportunity to the parties. Even though it has been pointed out that subsequent to the termination order another dealer ship has already been issued, these are all the matters, which can be considered before the appropriate forum. In view of the same, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ (B. PRAKASH RAO, J.) ___________________ (R. KANTHA RAO, J.) 16th September, 2008 Js. .......REGISTRAR To 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by it's Prl. Secretary, Revenue (K) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, 2 The District Collector, Vizianagaram, 3 The Vice Chairman, V.U.D.A. Visakhapatnam, 4 The Spl. Deputy Collector, Cum and Acquisition Officer, V.U.D.A. Visakhapatnam, 5 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, 6 2 CCs to G.P. for Revenue, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. (OUT) 7 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {RS}