ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs: –

“To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent Corporation to restore the license of retail petroleum outlet by restoring the Agreement dated 21.05.2012 (Annexure 1) which had been wrongly terminated by the Respondent authorities, is view of the specific finding of facts by the learned Sole Arbitrator in Award dated 28.12.2020.”

3. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as a Retail Outlet (RO) dealer in the Respondent-Corporation in the year 2012 and her dealership was terminated abruptly by the Respondent-Corporation on 11.07.2017 by back dating the same on 11.07.2016. That the petitioner, thereafter, has approached the Arbitrator as per the terms and conditions of the Letter-of-Intent/Agreement. That Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma (Retired Judge of the Patna High Court) was appointed as an Arbitrator. That the Arbitrator after going through the entire evidence and material on record has held that the termination of the Retail Outlet (RO) Dealership by the Respondent-Corporation is illegal has set aside the order of termination and granted compensation to the petitioner. However, the award for the restoration of the dealership could not be passed by the Arbitrator, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Amritsar Gas Services and Ors. reported in (1991) 1 SCC 533. Learned counsel has, therefore, stated that the petitiioner left with no other option has approached this Hon’ble Court by way of the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on following Judgments, which are reported as under: –

(i) 2007 (3) PLJR 114.

(ii) 2012 (2) SCC 1.

(iii) 2015 (16) SCC 125.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Corporation has stated that as against the award of the Arbitrator, the authorities have preferred Misc. Case No. 65 of 2021 before the competent Civil Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and the findings given by the Arbitrator have not become final. Learned counsel has stated that the award has not become final as the Misc. Case filed by the petitioner is pending adjudication. Learned counsel has, therefore prayed for dismissing the present writ petition. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhaven Construction through Authorized Signatory Premjibhai K. Shah vs. Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited and Anr. reported in (2022) 1 SCC 75 [: 2021 (2) BLJ 40 (SC)]. Learned counsel has further stated that if an order is passed by this Court at this stage, the same will prejudice the rights of the Respondent-Corporation and may have a bearing on the Misc. Case No. 65 of 2021 pending before the Civil Court.

6. Admittedly, as seen from the record, the petitioner was appointed as a Retail Outlet (RO) Dealer way back in the year 2012 and, thereafter, her dealership was terminated by the authority. The petitioner herein has approached the Arbitrator who vide award dated 28.12.2020 has held as under: –

“51. As it has already been held above that the authorities of the respondent Corporation have not followed the provisions of the DPSL. Agreement and also the provisions and conditions of Marketing Discipline Guidelines and have breached the terms and conditions and without following the provisions passed the termination order dated 11.07.2017 but as restoration of license and agreement cannot be passed as discussed above, the claimant appears entitled for compensation. Claimant in her statement on oath in paragraph (vii) has stated that she has invested amount of rupees one crore in establishing the business of retail petroleum outlet and this has not been denied by the respondents in his statement on oath filed on behalf of the respondent