Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.

Heard Mr. E. Manohar, learned Senior counsel in support of the appeal and Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The appellant was the writ petitioner in W.P.No.26115 of 2012 which was filed questioning the order of the Chief Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) dated 24-07-2012 where under the dealership agreement between the petitioner and the respondents dated 03-07-2009 and distributorship agreement also of even date was terminated forthwith. When the said writ petition was heard by the learned single Judge, learned counsel for the respondents inter alia raised objection as to maintainability of the writ petition in view of the alternative remedy of arbitration available to the writ petitioner. The said issue was adjudicated by the learned single Judge by accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that in case the writ petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of Arbitrator, the learned Arbitrator can grant all the reliefs including that of restoration of dealership if the termination of dealership is found vitiated. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in OLYMPUS SUPERSTRUCTURES PVT. LTD. v. MEENA VIJAY KHETAN (1999) 5 SCC 651). Learned single Judge, therefore, dismissed the writ petition holding inter alia that the relief of restoration of dealership also can be granted by the Arbitrator and giving liberty to the writ petitioner to raise the dispute as to restoration of dealership before the Arbitrator, particularly as the respondent-HPCL has already raised an arbitration dispute with regard to the penalty imposed on the writ petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed.

3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant primarily contends that the finding of the learned single Judge that the Arbitrator would have jurisdiction to restore the dealership to the writ petitioner is opposed to at least two decisions of the Supreme Court in INDIAN OIL COROPORATION LTD. v. AMRITSAR GAS SERVICE (1991) 1 SCC 533)and E. VENKATAKRISHNA v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION (2000) 7 SCC 764). He further contends that even if the petitioner is driven to remedy of arbitration, the Arbitrator cannot grant the relief of restoration of dealership though the petitioner is able to demonstrate that the order of termination is vitiated. Learned Senior counsel would, therefore, submit that the impugned order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition solely on the said ground is clearly unwarranted. He also submitted that even the decision in OLYMPUS SUPER STRUCTURES’s case(1 supra) relied upon by the learned single Judge also does not state the proposition that Arbitrator can restore the dealership on being satisfied of illegality of termination. Learned Senior counsel would, therefore, submit that since the basic premise of the impugned order is opposed to the decisions of the Supreme Court cited above and as the learned single Judge has not considered the writ petition on merits, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity of hearing of the writ petition on merits.

4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents-HPCL fairly states that so far as the legal position with regard to the powers of the Arbitrator are concerned, as held by the decisions in AMRITSAR GAS SERVICES’s case (2 supra) and E. VENKATAKRISHNA’s case(3 supra), the Arbitrator has no such power of restoring the dealership even if the order of termination is found to be bad. Though the learned Senior counsel does not want to join the issue on that aspect, he further submits that the invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is even otherwise unsustainable as several disputed questions arise for consideration which would not be adjudicated by