JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment dated 3.2.2010 passed in C.W.P. No. 14806 of 2009, whereby the claim of respondent No. 1/petitioner was allowed and the order dated 6.8.2009 passed by the appellant, vide which the retail outlet of respondent No. 1/petitioner was terminated, was quashed.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 was allotted "B" site Retail outlet by the appellant-Corporation in the year 2004 for running a petrol pump. Respondent No. 1 made the land available to the appellant- Corporation after taking the same on the basis of a registered lease deed dated 3.12.2003, between the petitioner (the lessee) and one Suresh Kumar (the lessor) for a period of 55 years @ Rs. 4,000/- per month. The Retail Outlet was commissioned in February 2004. Till 18.1.2006, the status of the respondent No. 1/petitioner was that of a lessee of Suresh Kumar. But on 19.1.2006, the respondent No. 1/petitioner purchased the entire land from Suresh Kumar vide sale deed No. 1246 dated 19.1.2006. On the same day, the respondent No. 1/petitioner sold the portion of the land on which Retail Outlet was situated (4K 0M) to one Balwant Singh, vide registered sale deed No. 1248 dated 19.1.2006. The status of the lessor and the lessee changed on 19.1.2006. It was done without any approval of the appellant-Corporation, which is alleged to be in violation of clauses 35 and 36 (a) of the terms and conditions of the Dealership Agreement dated 29.2.2004. On 1.5.2009, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent No. 1/petitioner and vide letter dated 6.8.2009, the dealership of Retail Outlet was terminated. Aggrieved against which, the respondent No. 1/the petitioner filed civil writ petition No. 14806 of 2009 seeking quashing of the decision of the appellant- Corporation canceling the retail outlet dealership of petrol pump that had been issued to respondent No. 1/petitioner under a contract between the parties through an agreement dated 29.2.2004. The appellant filed detailed written statement inter-alia stating that the writ petition is not maintainable as the respondent No. 1/petitioner has an alternative remedy of initiating arbitration proceedings. The said contention did not find favour with the learned Single Judge, who vide judgment dated 3.2.2010 allowed the writ petition and the same has been impugned in this appeal. The short issue raised by the Appellant before us is concerning the maintainability of the civil writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1/ petitioner in view of the express stipulation of the dealership agreement to the effect that for the determination of any dispute/ claim or to judge the legality of any act or omission under the Dealership Agreement, the same shall be referred for decision to an Arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.
(3.) THE Learned Single Judge, in the course of considering the merits of the issue agitated by the parties, came to the conclusion that availability of an alternate efficacious remedy cannot bar the constitutional right provided to a citizen to approach the High Court for redressal of its grievance occasioned due to violation of his right, statutory or otherwise. The Ld. Single Judge, after considering the relevant law, further observed that there are certain circumstances, the existence of which would justify the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 even if an efficacious and alternative remedy is available.;