Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) Termination of a dealership agreement is under challenge in the present writ petition.
(2.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that, the Oil Company issued an advertisement dated August 6, 2003 inviting applications for grant of dealership. Pursuant to which, the petitioners applied. Such application dated November 10, 2003 was evaluated by the Oil Company and the dealership was awarded. Subsequently, the petitioners received a notice dated December 10, 2009 from the Oil Company requiring the petitioners to show-cause with regard to four charges given in the show-cause notice. The petitioners replied thereto by a writing dated December 18, 2009. The petitioners did not hear anything on the show-cause notice and assumed that, the first show-cause notice stood dropped. However, the petitioners received a show-cause notice dated December 31, 2010. In the second show-cause notice, it is alleged that, the petitioners had taken the resources of the Corporation illegally and unauthorizedly and submitted the same to the Investigating Agency to defend the dealership. Such second show-cause notice was replied to by a writing dated January 17, 2011. By the impugned termination letter dated May 14, 2015, the authorities found that, based on investigation conducted by the Oil Company, report of which was not made available to the petitioners that, the petitioners are guilty of inserting documents relating to finance and tide volume. He submits that, the finding in the termination notice is beyond the second show-cause notice. Therefore, such finding cannot be sustained. Moreover, the charge of theft made as against the petitioners is without any basis as the application for grant of dealership was evaluated by the Oil Company, on the basis of the documents made available by the petitioners. Therefore, the question of the petitioners stealing any document from the Oil Company relating to the application made by the petitioners for grant of dealership does not arise. He points out that, the impugned termination notice is vitiated by the breach of principles of natural justice. The impugned termination notice refers to an investigation and a report of such investigation. The petitioners were not made over copies of such investigation report. In support of his contentions that, principles of natural justice must be adhered to while the administration makes a decision, he relies upon (Union of India and Others vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, 1991 1 SCC 588). Referring to (State of Orissa vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors., 1967 AIR(SC) 1269), he submits that, the Oil Company did not make over the investigation report to the petitioners. In such circumstances, he submits that, the impugned action of termination should be quashed.
(3.) Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Oil Company questions the maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that, the contract is non-statutory. The contract contemplates an alternative forum for adjudication of the disputes. The disputes between the parties are such that, the parties should be asked to avail of the chosen forum. In support of such contentions, he relies upon (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Amritsar Gas Service and Others, 1991 1 SCC 533), (Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and Others vs. Gayatri Construction Company and Another, 2008 8 SCC 172) and (Empire Jute Company Limited and Another vs. Jute Corporation of India Limited and Another, 2007 14 SCC 680). Relying upon (E. Venkatakrishna vs. Indian Oil Corporation and Another, 2000 7 SCC 764).;