IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the court has the authority to grant restoration of dealership despite the Arbitrator's limitation to grant only compensation, as per the mandate in Sec.14(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

ORDER:

Since the parties in both the Writ Petitions are one and the same in the two writ petitions i.e. W.P.No.12345 of 2011 and W.P.No.29128 of 2012, are disposed off through a common order.

2. Heard the learned counsel Mr. T.Praveen Kumar, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner in W.P.No.12345 of 2011, Mr Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.No.29128 of 2012 and learned senior counsel Mr. Deepak Bhaatacharjee appearing on behalf of the respondents in W.P.No.12345 of 2011 and W.P.No.29128 of 2012.

3. The prayer sought for by the Petitioner in W.P.No.12345 of 2011 is as under :

“to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the inaction on the part of the respondents in not restoring the retail dealership of the petitioners situated at Kompally and Madhapur, Rangareddy District, in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the arbitration award Ref. No.DBD/ARB/SS, dated 19-03-2010 is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) & 21 of the Constitution of India and further direct the respondent corporation to restore the said dealership.”

4. The prayer sought for by the Petitioner in W.P.No.29128 of 2012 is as under :

“to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order Ref. No.SDO/RO/2022, dated 21.07.2011 including termination order dated 06.01.2005, passed by the respondents rejecting to restore the dealership for the retail outlets of the petitioner situated at Kompally and Madhapur, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and non-application of mind, and set aside the said orders, and consequently direct the respondents to restore the dealership for the retail outlets of the petitioner situated at Kompally, Ranga Reddy District with HSD facility and Madhapur, Ranga Reddy District with MS facility.

PERUSED THE RECORD :

5. Paras 5, 6 & 7 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents in W.P.No.12345/2011 reads as under :

5. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner thereafter invoked the arbitration clause in the dealership agreement and Sri B.M.Bansal, Director (Marketing) was appointed as a sole arbitrator by the respondent, who entered into reference and conducted the arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The sole arbitrator passed an award on 19.03.2010 holding that the termination is bad. However, the following ration laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amritsar Gas Vs. Indian Oil Corporation reported in 1999(1) SCC 533 held that the petitioner will not be entitled for restoration of dealership but shall be entitled for compensation in terms of Section 14(1) of the Specific Relief Act 1963. After the award was passed, the legal advise was sought and a clear advise was given stating that the petitioner will be entitled to only claim. compensation and not restoration of dealership as per the award.

6. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner instead of seeking compensation, under the due process of law, addressed a letter on 05.05.2010 to Chairman of the corporation to revoke the termination. The request was not accepted but the compensation was calculated by the respondent corporation to abide by the award passed by the sole arbitrator and a sum of Rs.3,21,370/- was paid under cheque drawn in favour of the petitioner. Unfortunately, the petitioner returned the cheque.

7. That, the petitioner did not choose to question the arbitration award under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the award has become final. The respondent corporation has implemented the award in its true force and hence the petitioner is not entitled to seek any relief beyond the scope of the award after invoking the arbitration clause and after participating in the arbitration proceedings and after the award is passed, giving due regards to the question of facts and law involved in the case.

6. The interim orders of the Court dt. 27.04.2011 passed in W.P.No.12345/2011 which are in force as on date read as under :

“Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee,