JUDGMENT

Arb. Pet No. 38/2020.

1. Arb. Pet. No. 38/2020 has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes and claims raised by the petitioner through reference to arbitration.

2. Briefly stated, it is averred by the petitioner that upon termination of retail outlet dealership of M/s Gupta Filling Station, Sungal Morh, Tehsil Akhnoor, District Jammu, the respondent-HPCL appointed M/s Jhandu Filling Station as an ad hoc dealer on 15.01.2016 to operate the Petrol Pump at Sungal Morh, Akhnoor. After the tenure of M/s Jhandu Filling Station came to an end on 16.04.2018, the petitioner was called for interview on 18.04.2018 for a temporary arrangement to operate the said retail outlet. Vide communication No. JKRO/PS/ADHOC dated 18.04.2018, the retail outlet owned by the respondent-HPCL at Sungal Morh, Akhnoor, District Jammu, was allowed to be run by the petitioner. The arrangement was to remain in force for a period of one year commencing from 15.05.2018, or till the appointment of a regular dealer, or until earlier termination by the respondent-HPCL. If necessary, the said arrangement could have been renewed at the sole-discretion of respondent-HPCL in terms of Clause-7. Upon expiry of the initial term on 14.05.2019, by operation of Clause 7 of the communication dated 18.04.2018, the petitioner’s ad hoc arrangement was extended for another year with effect from 15.05.2019, to remain in force up to 14.05.2020, or till the appointment of a regular dealer, or till earlier termination by the Corporation-HPCL.

3. In para-9 of the petition, it is stated by the petitioner that as per the policy issued by the respondent-HPCL on 03.12.2003, the tenure of an ad hoc dealership, under no circumstances, shall exceed two years. In the event the retail outlet needs to be operated beyond the said period, a fresh selection of a dealer, strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the policy, is required to be undertaken.

4. Vide communication dated 27.04.2020, the respondent-HPCL informed the petitioner that in view of the COVID-19 pandemic, the temporary arrangement for operation of the retail outlet stood extended up to 30.06.2020. It was clarified that the extension would remain operative till 30.06.2020 or till appointment of a regular dealer or till earlier termination by the respondent-HPCL. Thereafter, vide order dated 19.06.2020, the tenure of the petitioner was further extended up to 30.09.2020.

5. The petitioner contends that despite the prevailing abnormal circumstances due to the pandemic as on 19.06.2020, when the last extension was granted in her favour, the respondent-HPCL initiated the process for selection of a new ad hoc dealer by issuing communication No. J&KRRPS dated 08.05.2020. Subsequently, vide communication No. JKRO/PS/ADHOC dated 11.09.2020, the respondent-HPCL made a temporary arrangement for a period of one year for operation of the retail outlet at Sungal Morh with Shri Ajay Mahajan, Proprietor of M/s Ravinder Kumar and Bros. Further, vide communication No. JKRO/PS/Adhoc/Chakmalal dated 11.09.2020, the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the retail outlet along with HPCL assets to the Area Sales Manager of the Corporation, Shri Sunil Kumar Digra.

6. It is contended by the petitioner in paragraph 11 of the petition that the respondents were under an obligation to continue the ad hoc arrangement with her until the appointment of a regular dealer, notwithstanding that the tenure had been extended up to 30.09.2020. According to the petitioner, she could have been replaced only by appointment of a regular dealer or upon lawful termination of her ad hoc arrangement in accordance with the governing terms and policy.

7. It is further averred that the petitioner had approached the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jammu (Commercial Court) by filing a petition under Secti