The main legal point established in the judgment is that the existence of an arbitration clause in a contractual agreement provides the parties with the remedy of invoking the arbitration clause for seeking redressal of grievances, and the dispute arising out of a contractual agreement should be examined by the Arbitrator under the arbitration clause.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. Chandurkar, J.

1. In view of notice for final disposal issued earlier the learned counsel for the parties have been heard by issuing Rule and making the same returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner who has been appointed as distributor by the Indian Oil Corporation-respondent nos. 3 and 4 has challenged the order dated 15.01.2020 terminating the distributorship agency granted to him as well as the earlier orders dated 20.09.2019 suspending the distributorship and 18.12.2019 seeking to recover an amount of Rs. 7,52,950/- from the petitioner.

3. The facts relevant for adjudicating the challenges raised in the writ petition are that the petitioner has suffered 85% disability and holds a disability certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon. The petitioner was awarded Indane distributorship at Gondia under the physical handicapped category on 22.05.2012. Distributorship Agreement was signed on 23.05.2012 and the outlet was commissioned on 29.05.2012. According to the petitioner, he was conducting the distributorship business in accordance with the terms and conditions imposed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 in the distributorship agreement. The said respondents however acting upon two complaints proceeded to issue show cause notice on 20.09.2019 and at the same time suspending the said Distributorship Agreement. It was stated that there was contravention of Clauses 21, 23(b) and (c-i) of Distributorship Agreement. The petitioner replied to the aforesaid show cause notice on 22.09.2019 denying the allegations made therein. Thereafter yet another show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 15.11.2019 alleging violation of the very same clauses that were mentioned in the earlier notice. The petitioner replied to that show cause notice on 07.12.2019. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 by the order dated 18.12.2019 directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 7,52,950/- towards shortage of equipment. On 15.01.2020 the respondent nos. 3 and 4 proceeded to terminate the Distributorship Agreement. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid action of termination of the distributorship agency.

4. At the outset Shri Sunil Manohar, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that as per Clause 37 of the Distributorship Agreement there was an arbitration clause under which all questions, disputes and differences arising under or in relation to the Distributorship Agreement were to be referred to arbitration. According to the learned Senior Advocate it was submitted that since the remedy of invoking the arbitration clause was available to the petitioner, the writ petition was not liable to be entertained. It was not the case of the petitioner that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 had acted in breach of principles of natural justice while terminating the distributorship agreement. The show cause notices issued by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 had been replied to and thereafter the distributorship agreement came to be terminated. It was thus submitted that the writ petition was not liable to be entertained on merits.

5. In reply to the aforesaid objection Shri R.L. Khapre, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that notwithstanding the existence of Clause 37 in the Distributorship Agreement, the writ petition was maintainable since the petitioner was seeking the relief of restoration of the distributorship agency after setting aside the order of termination. Such relief was not likely to be granted in the arbitration proceedings and this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could in the facts of the case direct restoration of the distributorship agency. Inviting attention to the decision in Harbanslal Sahnia and another vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and ors. (2003) 2 SCC 107 it was submitted that if it was demonstrated that the distributorship agreement had been terminated for an irrelevant or