The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the Arbitrator to decide disputes and the application of the Arbitration Act, 1940, in determining the validity of the award.

ARUN KUMAR GOEL, J. - Facts as revealed from the record of this case are that the petitioner was granted dealership of a retail Outlet of Motor Spirit (MS) and High Speed Diesel (HSD) being a disabled ex-serviceman during Indo-Pak War of 1971, as according to him because of gallantry shown during the said war he was also awarded Veerchakra. Thus retail Outlet was allotted with a view to rehabilitate him. He is running this Outlet as its sole Proprietor under the name and style of Paramjit Filling Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. For sale of MS and HSD Dispensers were installed at the aforesaid Filling Station.

2. On account of shortage of diesel in the month of November, 1978, respondent-Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) closed the dispenser of HSD. There is no dispute between the parties that a written agreement was entered upon between them for running the aforesaid Outlet.

3. According to petitioner closure of this Dispenser of HSD was with the assurance that it would be restored shortly. This is what was held out as well as agreed to between the parties when same was ordered to be closed in November, 1978 as per petitioner. On the other hand stand of the Indian Oil Corporation is that in addition to shortage of diesel, there used to be long ques of vehicles for getting diesel with the result that sale of MS was being affected. In this view of the matter the Dispenser of HSD was ordered to be closed and at no point of time any assurance was held out to the petitioner as alleged by him.

4. In the aforesaid background when Indian Oil Corporation did not restore the HSD Dispenser, petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No. 77/90 in this Court which was finally disposed of on 10-12-1990. In this petition prayer made by the petitioner was in the following terms :

"to restore the retail Outlet facility for High Speed Diesel (HSD) on the ground that he was given an assurance and promise by the respondents that this facility would be restored to him after it was withdrawn in 1979."

On the other hand stand of the Indian Oil Corporation in this writ petition was that though initially retailership was given to the petitioner of MS and HSD but latter was withdrawn and it was converted into MS facility because of acute shortage of HSD as also on account of long ques of buses and trucks were seen at that time. It was further its case that HSD to MS was made with the consent of petitioner. Arbitration Clause was also set up as a defence regarding non-maintainability of the writ petition. Finally this petition was dismissed with the following observations :

"There being no merit in this petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed in limini. The petitioner is at liberty to invoke the arbitration agreement, if so advised, on the merits of the case."

Record of the arbitration proceedings further suggests that after the passing of aforesaid order in the writ petition, Indian Oil Corporation did not appoint an Arbitrator, as such petitioner was constrained to file A.A. No. 205/91 for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute, and in it CMP No. 94/93 was also filed. It came to be finally disposed of in the following terms :

"Arbitration Application No. 205 of 1991 has been moved by the petitioner for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that had arisen between the parties. Petitioner has filed this CMP stating that during the pendency of the Arbitration Application, respondent No. 2 had appointed Shri Arun Jyoti, Deputy General Manager (Lubes), Indian Oil Corporation Limited as the sole Arbitrator and adjudicate upon the dispute and differences between the parties.

Mr. Joginder Singh submits that petitioner has no objection to the appointment so made. He prays that in the light of the action taken by respondent No. 2, Arbitration Application No. 205 of 1991 had become infructuous and seeks its withdrawal. This application is allowed and A.A. 205/91 is dismissed, as such."

Above named Arbitrator seems to