Hon'ble R.R. Awasthi, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Yashovardhan Swarup, Sri Sunil Sharma for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri G.P. Pandey holding brief of Sri Manu Dixit for respondent no.5.
The writ petition challenges the order dated 31.12.09 passed by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., by means of which, bulk petroleum products road transport agreement of the petitioner dated 30.3.09 has been terminated.
A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Sunil Sharma that it not being a statutory contract but a contract, private in nature, where in the agreement an arbitration clause also exists, the writ petition is not maintainable.
Sri Yashovardhan Swarup, in response, however, submitted that since the termination of the contract has been done on an absolutely non existent fact and that the registration certificate issued by the Motor Vehicle Department being a public document cannot be ignored, so as to rely upon an information given by a private bank (HDFC Bank), to hold the petitioner's conduct as fraudulent and to cancel his agreement by saying that it was obtained by giving incorrect facts, therefore, the writ petition is maintainable.
His further submission is that in such matters, the High Court can entertain the petition and enter into the question of facts, which otherwise could be proved only only basis of the record.
The discretion to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Court is a self restraint. The High Court, if satisfied that in a given case, the matter can be decided by it within the prescribed parameters and by following the norms, the matter which involves disputed question of facts can also be looked into and entertained on the basis of facts and circumstances of each and every case.
In the instant case, it cannot be disputed that the agreement/contract is a private contract, which has no statutory binding or in other words, it is 2 not a statutory contract.
After execution of the contract, it appears that certain deficiency mentioned in the order was pointed out by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., who after giving show cause notice to the petitioner has terminated the contract.
Apart from the fact that whether any ground existed for cancellation of the contract, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it cannot be lost sight of, that if the agreement provides a mechanism, namely, the arbitration, the High Court would be loath in interfering in such matters at the first instance.
Besides, the pleas raised involve disputed question of facts, where evidence may be required to be led and, therefore, this Court would not interfere in the matter.
We, under the circumstances, dismiss the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under the contract and while doing so, give liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, as may be permissible under law.
We may clarify that we have not addressed ourselves on the merit of the claim of either parties, and any observation made by us if at all touches the merit of the claim of either of the parties, that shall not be taken into consideration, as we have mentioned the same only to find out as to whether such a petition can be entertained or not.
Dated: 12.1.2010 Sachin