The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Exhibit P7 an order issued by the 1st respondent proposing to terminate the franchisee of the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibit P6, reply to the show cause notice Exhibit P5, and also the request made by the petitioner for referring the matter for arbitration in terms of Exhibit P8. 2. Exhibit P7 is an order passed by the 1st respondent inter alia alleging that the petitioner was involved in the production of fake and bogus RTGS receipts for taking stocks. According to the 1st respondent, there is evidence for the same and that apart huge amounts were outstanding as on 31.03.2013 which was cleared only on 12.08.2013. Such actions of the petitioner, according to the 1st respondent, was against the C.M. Sales and Distribution Policy, 2012. Having regard to the aforesaid finding of fact and after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, the franchisee granted in favour of the petitioner was terminated with effect from 31.05.2014.
3. According to the petitioner, while issuing Exhibit P7, he was not heard. That apart, all the amounts due to BSNL has been paid and the findings of fact in Exhibit P7 are totally baseless. The petitioner has not involved in preparation of any fake or bogus documents and he has not committed any fraud as alleged.
4. Exhibit P8 is the request made by the petitioner for referring the matter for Arbitration in terms of Clause 30 of the terms of the agreement between the parties. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that in view of the fact that the petitioner had submitted Exhibit P8 request for referring the matter for Arbitration, the same will be considered in accordance with the procedure prescribed. That apart, since the competent authority had already taken a view in terms of Exhibit P7, after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, this Court may not interfere with such contractual issues which have arisen between the parties.
5. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, I do not think that this is an instance in which this Court should interfere. The issue between the parties is with reference to the breach of contract or otherwise in respect of Exhibit P1 franchisee agreement. The petitioner was a franchisee of BSNL and by way of Exhibit P7, it is inter alia stated that the petitioner did not conform to the terms of agreement which has resulted in cancellation of the franchisee issued. Of course, the petitioner has his own grievance in the matter and one of the grievance is that he was not heard before passing Exhibit P7. The perusal of Exhibit P7 would show that explanation offered by the petitioner has been considered and there is no mandate that he should be heard in person before taking such a decision. Apparently, at the stage when the writ petition was filed, the petitioner had already issued Exhibit P8 requesting for Arbitration of the dispute. When there is a procedure prescribed for settlement of disputes by way of arbitration it may not be possible for this Court to interfere at this stage and issue directions to respondents in any manner. The petitioner’s rights are protected by virtue of the terms of the agreement and also the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner is always entitled to take appropriate steps in the light of the procedure prescribed and this Court need not issue any further directions in the matter.
In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled for any relief as sought for. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE (JUDGE) DSV/30/05