A writ of mandamus is discretionary and cannot be issued if the petitioner has suppressed material facts, reflecting abuse of judicial process; clear legal rights must be established for relief.

ORDER :

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.

1. The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of the respondents in terminating the RO Dealership Agreement through proceedings in Ref.No.VZGDO/RO/Seetharama FS dated 18.15.2023 as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, set-aside the same, consequently direct the respondents to restore RO Dealership Agreement in favour of the petitioners.

2. The facts of the case are that. Petitioner No.1 was awarded the retail outlet dealership situated at Innispeta, Rajamahendravaram for retail sale and supply of petroleum products. Petitioner No.1 firm was reconstituted with Petitioner No.2 - Sri N. Koti Reddy and Petitioner No.3 - Smt. Dwarampudi Rajya Lakshmi. After death of Sri N. Koti Reddy, the Dealership was reconstituted with Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 i.e. N.V.V. Jagan Mohan Reddy and Smt. N. Sakuntala. During operation of the dealership license, the Corporation received complaint that Petitioner No.2 was working as Full Time Professor at VJ College of Pharmacy, Diwancheruvu, Rajahmundry. One of the pre conditions and terms of operation of the retail outlet is that the Dealer should not take any employment or engage in any other business and/or profession apart from the operation of the Dealership. Based upon the complaint, the Corporation issued a Show Cause Notice dated 18.05.2021 calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the dealership should not be terminated. Dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioners, the Corporation terminated the dealership on 18.05.2023 holding that Petitioner No.2 had been working as a Professor in VJ College of Pharmacy during subsistence of the dealership in violation of Clause 21 and 28(b) of the Dealership license Agreement.

3. Immediately, on 13.6.2023, the petitioners filed Arbitration Original Petitions in AOP No.8/2023 and AOP No.9/2023 before the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, to direct the respondents to resume supply of petroleum products and to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from removing the installed machinery from the business premises of the petitioners. The Corporation also filed AOP No. 11/2023 seeking mandatory injunction to handover the retail outlet premises to run the business on ad-hoc basis. All the three AOPs were dismissed by the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam on 12.12.2023, granting liberty to the petitioners to agitate their respective contentions before the Arbitrator as per the terms of agreement, but the common order was not challenged by the petitioners. In the meantime, the petitioners invoked the arbitration process in terms of Clause 6 of the Dealership Agreement. Since the parties could not finalize the Arbitrator, the petitioners filed ah Arb. Appin No.47 of 2023 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties on the file of this Hon’ble Court. On 01.12.2023, this Hon’ble Co