Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed by the respondent no.1 oil company as the distributor of Liquid Petroleum Gas (in short, "LPG") at Panchmura, PS Taldangra, District Bankura in the State of West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as 'the said area'). In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the notice dated November 14, 2018 issued by the Executive Director, WBSO of the respondent no.1 Oil Company terminating his distributorship of LPG.
(2.) The brief facts required to be considered for deciding this writ petition are that on or about November 27, 2010 the respondent no.1 issued a public notice inviting application for selection of the distributor of LPG, under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Liquid Petroleum Gas Vitrak (RGGLV) for the said area. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioner filed an application for obtaining the distributorship of LPG for the said area and in a draw held on August 23, 2011 he was selected for the said distributorship. According to the petitioner, in the meantime, by a registered deed of purchase no.4561 of 2010 dated November 24, 2010 he purchased a plot of land measuring 14 decimals from Sri Bimal Chandra Nandi and on the said plot of land he intended to set up the godown and the showroom for said LPG distributorship. In the application submitted to the respondent no.1, the petitioner stated that he intends to set up the LPG godown and showroom. The petitioner further claims that in order to set up the godown to store the gas cylinders and to ensure smooth supply of gas cylinders, by virtue of a registered deed dated November 23, 2011 he also purchased another adjoining plot of land ad measuring an area of 4 decimals.
(3.) On February 27, 2012 an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent no.1, whereby the latter appointed the former as the distributor of LPG for the said area. The terms and conditions under which the respondent no.1 appointed the petitioner as the LPG distributor for the said area were recorded in the said agreement dated February 27, 2012. Clause 37 (a) of the said agreement dated February 27, 2012 contemplated that all disputes and differences arising under or in relation to the said agreement shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Director (Marketing) of the respondent no.1 and if, the said Director is unable or unwilling to act of the sole arbitrator the matter shall be referred to the sole arbitration of some other officer of the respondent no.1, who is willing to act as such sole arbitrator.;