(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Kantha Rao,J) This writ appeal is filed by M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.14490 of 2009 on 22.12.2009.

2. The appellants issued notice dated 05.05.2009 to the respondent to show cause as to why the dealership of a petroleum outlet which was installed in the premises bearing Door No.1-1-5/1, Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad shall not be terminated. The grounds on which, the termination of dealership was proposed by the appellants are that: i) the respondent failed to reach the targets which she has covenanted to uplift the minimum quantities of products under Clause 9 of the dealership agreement and rendering the retail outlet dry of MS and HSD on several occasions during the period from January, 2009 to March, 2009 and thereby causing loss of sales and also inconvenience to the general public; ii) that they have received a letter SME/8/2009-10 dated 20.04.2009 from State Bank of India, Secunderabad branch to the effect that the respondent had availed working capital facilities aggregating Rs.2.30 Crores and in addition Rs.0.50 Crores and that the respondent became irregular in paying instalments and the bank classifying the account as non-performing assets and proposing to initiate action for recovery of loan amount by invoking the provisions under SARFAESI Act and that it is going to serve possession notice shortly initiating action to seize all the current assets of the retail outlet. …The respondent however, sent a reply to the show cause notice as well as the termination notice agreeing that the performance of the respondent is below the minimum off-take required for the products as per the dealership agreement and explaining that the dealership of the outlet was given to the respondent in the year 2007 after the death of her husband who was holding licence since 1977 and the time consumed by the respondent to understand the gross-roots of the business and the potential of the market and making a request to consider the case of the respondent on the ground that the last two years as an aberration due to the learning phase and with regard to the working capital loan with the State Bank of India, the respondent submitted that their working capital loan is 100% secured by their own residence and another property worth in total more than 4.5 Crores with collateral and personal guarantees and that the assets of the appellants/Corporation have not been offered as a security for loan.

3. Thereafter, the appellants examined the reply dated 13.05.2009 sent by the respondent, did not accept the explanation offered by the respondent, arrived at the opinion that the respondent failed to operate the outlet properly and kept the same dry on several occasions by commissions and omissions and stating that they had no option except to terminate the dealership agreement as provided under Clauses 9, 18, 13 r/w 55(k), ultimately terminated the dealership agreement dated 02.02.2007 with immediate effect.

4. The contention urged by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the appellants/Petroleum Corporation is twofold; one is that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the action impugned in the writ petition is in the realm of private non-statutory commercial contract which cannot be enforced by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and secondly that as the dealership agreement specifically provides for settlement of any dispute only having recourse to the arbitration process, the respondent is precluded from resorting to any other remedy as the remedy agreed to be pursued by the parties is equally efficacious.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that there is no hard and fast rule to restrict the interference of the High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since the appellants-Corporation being