Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as Company) is one of Oil Marketing Companies of the Government of India, published an advertisement in newspaper for grant of LPG Distributorship throughout of India including distributorship at Mohanlalganj. The petitioner and her husband/Sri Bhupesh Pandey (now deceased) applied for grant of LPG Distributorship and they were selected. For constructing the godown for LPG Distributorship, the husband of the petitioner got a lease deed of the land bearing Khasra No.430 (Kha) situated at Village-Mohari Khurd, Pargana-Mohanlalganj executed in his favour from Shri Rajendra Kumar.
On 22.04.2013 partnership was also executed whereby the firm i.e. M/s. Virendra Gas Service was constituted in which Shri Bhupesh Pandey and Smt. Priya Pandey (petitioner no.2) were shown to be having 50% share each and on 25.05.2013 a dealership agreement was executed. On 22.04.2018, Shri Bhupesh Pandey/husband of the petitioner expired. On 30.04.2018, the petitioner no.2 preferred an application before the opposite parties for intimating the death of her husband and for constituting of new partnership deed with her father-in-law. The father-in-law of the petitioner no.2 wanted to induct his daughter/Smt. Alka Sharma as a partner. Thereafter, reconstitution proposal was made and on 26.06.2018 a letter was issued by the opposite party no.2 in which it is mentioned that petitioner no.2 and opposite party no.3 are partners having 60% and 40% share. On 27.06.2018 a partnership deed was prepared and dealership agreement and appointment letter was issued on 28.06.2018.
It is further pointed out that the father-in-law of the petitioner also wanted to dislodge the petitioner no.2 from the LPG Distributorship and due to illegal attitude of the opposite party no.3, the operation of the LPG Distributorship has been closed on 08.11.2018. Accordingly on 14.11.2018 the opposite party no.2 sought an explanation (joint explanation of partners) regarding closure of the distribution operation to which petitioner no.2 submitted the reply on 16.11.2018. Subsequent communications of official respondents were also replied by the petitioner no.2. The petitioner no.2 is willing to operate the distributorship as she and her husband had invested huge amount in the firm i.e. M/s. Virendra Gas Service.
Thereafter, petitioner no.2 and opposite party no.3 in pursuance of the letter dated 02.03.2019 appeared before the official respondent and in the meeting had agreed to resolve all personal disputes and to arrange liquid funds for operation of the distributorship.
However, in utter surprise, on 22.05.2019, the order has been passed by the opposite party no.2 whereby the dealership agreement dated 28.06.2018 has been terminated, which is illegal and arbitrary in manner.
Hence, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.05.2019 of termination of the dealership agreement of LPG Distributorship awarded to the petitioner no.2.
Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that in view of the terms of the agreement particularly Clause 39, any dispute or difference of any nature has to be settled through Arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Thus, the present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the records, we feel that the remedy is available to the petitioner to approach the Arbitral Tribunal in pursuance to the agreement entered between the parities.
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the present writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
It is open for the petitioner to avail the remedy available in the agreement.
Order Date :- 29.8.2019/Mahesh