N SAMPATH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a licencee under the 2nd respondent, for distribution of petrol/diesel. The terms and conditions governing the said licence are reduced into writing in the memorandum of agreement dated 7th February, 1996, entered into between the parties.

(2.) IT. is the allegation of the petitioner that the anti-adulteration cell, which is not a party to this proceeding, inspected the retail outlet and submitted an inspection report, Annexure-B, pointing out to certain deficiencies detected during the inspection. Pursuant to which, the 2nd respondent issued a notice dated 10-9-2003, annexure-C, calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 20th September, 2003, annexure-D, inter alia contending that the dispensing unit might have been erratic when the delivery of the petroleum product was short by 60 ml. and that the anti- adulteration cell had not used the proper measures, resulting in an improper test. The 2nd respondent having considered the explanation offered, passed an order on 26th december, 2003, Annexure-E, suspending the supply of petrol for a period of 15 days and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/ -. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order, dated 26th December, 2003, Annexure-E, is before this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that dehors an arbitration clause in the agreement, Annexure-A, the petitioner is entitled to maintain this writ petition and seek indulgence of this Court to interfere with the order at Annexure-E. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was for the 2nd respondent to have sought for arbitration of the dispute and not for the petitioner, since clauses 13 and 14 of the agreement stipulate that the dispensing pump is owned and maintained by the Oil Company.