Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Through Its Dy. General Manager (Retail Sales) Jaipur Regional Office, 1 st Floor, LIC Investment Building, PhaseII, Near Ambedkar Circle, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur (Raj.) 302005 Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. Aditya Vijay and Mr. Bhaskar Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Ms. Vartika Mehra HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order RESERVED ON :: 22/09/2022 PRONOUNCED ON :: 29/09/2022 1. The applicant has filed this Arbitration Application under Section 11(5) read with Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for resolution of the disputes and differences between the parties. 2. It is contended in the Arbitration Application that a retail outlet was allotted to the applicant by the respondent and an agreement was executed between the parties on 03.05.2017. The respondent conducted an inspection of the retail outlet on 03.03.2020 and on the basis of the inspection conducted, issued a fact finding letter on 06.06.2022 to the applicant, interalia stating therein that the applicant has violated the Marketing and (Downloaded on 30/09/2022 at 09:52:18 PM) (2 of 5) [ARBAP1/2022] Discipline Guidelines, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the MDG Guidelines") and asked the applicant to explain the reasons for irregularities and the action taken to rectify the same. The applicant was also asked to submit the explanation. A reply to the said notice was given on 23.06.2020. Thereafter, the respondent issued a letter on 28.09.2020 as a show cause notice whereby the explanation submitted by the applicant was rejected. 3. The nonapplicant/respondent vide order dated 22.12.2020 terminated the retail outlet of the applicant. The applicant thereafter assailed the said order dated 22.12.2020 by filing writ petition before the High Court being S.B. No.1622/2021. The applicant thereafter served a notice dated 06.10.2021 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. The respondent has failed to take any step, therefore, the present Arbitration Application has been filed. 4. It is contended by counsel for the applicant that there is an Arbitration Clause in the Agreement i.e. Clause 62. The applicant had given a notice seeking appointment of an Arbitrator vide letter dated 06.10.2021. Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on Sanjiv Prakash Versus Seema Kukreja & Ors.: (2021) 9 SCC 732. Counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on Management Committee of Montfort Senior Secondary School Versus Vijay Kumar & Ors.: (2005) 7 SCC 472. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the Arbitration Application. It is contended that the MDG Guidelines are in operation and as per the said MDG Guidelines, the decision of termination of a retail outlet provides for filing of an appeal before the Designated Authority. It is also contended that appeals in case of termination arising out of invocation of the (Downloaded on 30/09/2022 at 09:52:18 PM) (3 of 5) [ARBAP1/2022] MDG Guidelines, the Appellate Authority will be a Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) nominated by the Oil Marketing Company and would comprise of (i) a Retired Judge of the High Court, (ii) a Retired Government Servant, who held post not below the rank of Joint Secretary in Government of India or equivalent rank and (iii) a Retired Official of PSU Oil Marketing Companies, who held the post not below the rank of Director. It is also provided that the Retired Judge of the High Court in the Committee will be the Chairperson. It is also contended that the proper remedy available to the applicant was to file an appeal before the Dispute Resolution Panel, but instead the applicant has approached this Court. It is also contended that the applicant has fil