Writ court is vested with wide discretion and entertaining writ petition even on disputed questions of fact in contract matters.

This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 27.08.2009 passed by the Executive Director, A.P.S.O., the 1st respondent herein, terminating the petitioner from the distributorship.

2. The facts, in nutshell, which are essential for adjudication of the issue and resolution of the controversy in the present writ petition, are as under:

The petitioner is a graduate and belongs to Scheduled Tribe Community. He got selection as a Distributor for Liquified Petroleum Gas of the respondent Indian Oil Corporation at Anakapalle of Visakhapatnam District in the year 1985. The respondent-Corporation vide Ref:APSO/L/S/2020, dated 30.04.2009 issued a show cause notice, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the Distributorship Agreements dated 30.01.1985 and 19.05.2004 should not be terminated while alleging violation of Clause Nos.23-C (i to iv) of the Distributorship Agreement. In response to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted an explanation dated 29.05.2009. Thereafter, the 1st respondent passed an order dated 27.08.2009, terminating the distributorship of the petitioner.

3. Assailing the order of termination dated 27.08.2009 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, discriminatory and in violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. This Court issued Rule Nisi on 25.09.2009 and responding to the same, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, denying the averments in the writ affidavit and in the direction of justifying the impugned action.

5. Heard Sri M.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri K. Rajanna, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Sri T. Vinod Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation, apart from perusing the material available on record.

6. Contentions advanced by Sri M.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri K. Rajanna, learned counsel for the petitioner

i) The impugned order, terminating the distributorship is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, discriminatory, violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the terms and conditions of the Agreement.

ii) There have been neither any complaints nor any remarks from the customers on the product offering service, quality and safety matters, and the petitioner was adjudged as the best distributor in the year 1997.

iii) Petitioner neither violated any statutory rules nor any directions that govern the LPG business and he managed the distributorship effectively, safely and to the best satisfaction of the customers and corporation officials.

iv) The 1st respondent did not properly consider the explanation of the petitioner while exercising the power under Clause Nos.23 (C) (i to iv) of the Agreement.

v) The impugned order is not in conformity with Clause No.27 (a) of the agreement.

vi) The respondents ought to have extended the revised policy issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas on 01.12.2008.

vii) The allegations are not tenable in view of the letter dated 9.02.1988 and in view of the explanation submitted in response to the show cause notice.

7. Contentions of Sri T. Vinod Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents -

i) In view of Clause No.37 (a) of the Agreement dated 19.05.2004, which stipulates resolution of disputes by way of Arbitration, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

ii) The order of termination is strictly in conformity with the clauses of Agreement and since the petitioner contravened the clauses of Agreement the respondents are perfectly justified in terminating the distributorship of the petitioner.

In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in W.P.(C).No.7587 of 2010, dated 20.04.2012.

8. In the light of the above pleadings, submissions and contentions,