IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 1159 of 2009 --------------- --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.22607/2008 Dated 07/04/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- KUMARI LEKSHMI.T.S., PROPRIETRIX, M/S.MASS FUELS, VELLAYAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM-10. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION (IOC) REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, 3079/03, SADIQ NAGAR, J.B.THO MARG, NEW DELHI-110049. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATIN LTD., KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., COCHIN-36. 3. THE CHIEF L.P.G.MANAGER, THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATIN LTD., KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., COCHIN-36. 4. THE DIRECTOR (MARKETING) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, 4-9-ALI OCAVER JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST MUMBAI 400 051). 5. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF OIL AND NATURAL GAS, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. R1 TO R4 BY ADV.SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE (SR.) & ADV.MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No. 1159 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 9th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. Appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed challenging Exts.P2, P4 and P7 proceedings initiated by the first respondent terminating her licence for distributorship of LPG. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition relegating the petitioner to pursue the remedy under clause 37(a) of Ext.P1 agreement, for arbitration. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the said remedy will not be efficacious, since the appellant has a case that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with in taking the impugned action. It is also contended that in respect of the charges levelled against the appellant for termination of licence, no opportunity was given to the appellant to cure the defects. At any rate, it is contended that the lapses are not so W.A.No.1159 of 2009 - 2 - grave to attract the extreme penalty of termination since Ext.P1(a) marketing guidelines have prescribed certain penalties in respect of the lapses. 3. We are unable to take a different view from that of the view taken by the learned Single Judge despite the persuasive arguments advanced by the the learned counsel Mr.C.S.Narayanan in view of the contractual relationship between the parties. We however make it clear that the consequences of lack of notice and also the consequent action on the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice are also matters which should be gone into in the arbitration proceedings as referred to in clause 37 (a) of Ext.P1 since the Arbitrator is entitled to go into any right, liability, act and omission on account of any of the parties arising out of or in relation to the agreement. The question of mitigation of penalty can also be raised before the Arbitrator. Subject to this observation the writ appeal is dismissed. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice Kurian Joseph, Judge vns