SPA/266/2018
2025 Latest Caselaw 2687 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

SPA/266/2018 on 20 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                     2025:UHC:4176-DB
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions                 COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               SPA/266/2018
                               Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

(Per: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

1. None present for the appellant.

2. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Appellant was appointed as dealer for Liquefied Petroleum Gas at Narendra Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal. His dealership was terminated vide order dated 08.03.2011. He filed WPMS No. 734 of 2018 challenging the order, whereby his dealership was terminated. He also sought a direction to the Authorities to restore the dealership agreement dated 01.03.2008 and also to restore his LPG supply. The said writ petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 22.03.2018, which is reproduced below:-

"The petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court for the following relief(s):-

"(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside the impugned termination order dated 08.03.2011 passed by respondent no. 1, by which Respondent no. 1 has terminated the dealership agreement of the Petitioner dated 01.03.2008 and has terminated the dealership of the petitioner pertaining to supply of L.P.G. at Narendra Nagar, District-Tehri Garhwal.

(ii). To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 & 2 to restore the dealership Agreement dated 01.03.2008 of the petitioner with respondent no. 1.

(iii). To issue a writ, order or direction in the 2025:UHC:4176-DB nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 & 2 to restore the LPG supply of the petitioner in respect of dealership Agreement dated 01.03.2008 at its showroom and godown situated at Narendra Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal."

2. The petitioner had entered into a contract with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. Thereafter, some dispute arose between the parties. Consequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being WPMS No. 1991 of 2012, which was dismissed by this Court on ground that since the agreement has an arbitration clause, the petitioner must avail the remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Against this order, the petitioner filed a special appeal before a Division Bench of this Court which was also dismissed. This Court has been informed that this order was again challenged by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Apex Court, where the SLP filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. Meanwhile, the Arbitrator i.e. Director, Refineries continued with the proceedings in the matter and according to the petitioner, proceedings were concluded by the Arbitrator but the Arbitrator did not give the award as he reached the age of superannuation and retired from service. Thereafter, substitute arbitrator was appointed. The appointment of this arbitrator, however, was challenged by the petitioner by means of another writ petition being WPMS No. 1391 of 2014, wherein this Court directed that the newly appointed arbitrator shall not proceed with the case till the next date of listing.

3. The aforesaid writ petition remained pending before this Court for some time and thereafter very conveniently, the petitioner withdrew the said writ petition on 06.09.2017.

4. The relief sought by the petitioner by means of the present writ petition (stated above) is a prayer being made too late in the day and that too in a writ petition. This cannot be granted by this Court for the simple reason that under sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the petitioner can pursue the matter before the "Court" as defined under Section 2 (e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

5. In view of the above, no interference is being called for by this Court in the matter at this stage. The writ petition stands dismissed in limine."

2025:UHC:4176-DB

3. In this intra-court appeal, appellant has challenged the dismissal of his writ petition vide judgment dated 22.03.2018.

4. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it is revealed that appellant had earlier filed WPMS No. 1991 of 2012, challenging the termination order dated 08.03.2011, which was dismissed by holding that since there was an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties, therefore, the appellant must avail the remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

5. Against dismissal of his earlier writ petition, he filed an intra-court appeal, which was also dismissed, and Hon'ble Apex Court also refused to interfere with the dismissal of his writ petition. It is further revealed that the Arbitrator, i.e. Director, Refineries continued with arbitration proceedings, which were concluded also, but due to superannuation of the Director, award could not be given; a substitute Arbitrator was thereafter appointed. Appellant challenged the appointment of substitute Arbitrator by filing WPMS No. 1391 of 2014. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.09.2017.

6. By the impugned judgment, relief was denied to the appellant by holding that he can pursue the matter before the forum available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

7. The view taken in the impugned judgment cannot be faulted. Since 2025:UHC:4176-DB

arbitration proceedings had commenced and it is not in dispute that there was an Arbitration Clause in the agreement between the parties, therefore, appellant has to seek his remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be available to him, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.

9. Accordingly, the special appeal fails and is dismissed.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 20.05.2025 Aswal

NITI RAJ Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

SINGH 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005a a85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3

ASWAL D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.05.21 07:44:25 -07'00'