Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, a proprietorship concern, was allotted retail outlet dealership by the respondent -Corporation at village Ren situated on NH -89 in the year 1982. In terms of the lease agreement, the petitioner -firm was authorised to sell High Speed Diesel (HSD). It emerges out from the facts averred in the petition that some dispute cropped up between the petitioner and the respondent -HPCL and in terms of clause 66 of the dealership agreement dated 10.06.2008 the matter was referred to the sole arbitrator for adjudicating the dispute. The sole arbitrator Mr. M.K. Sharma after hearing the rival claims rendered its award on 04.08.2015. The operative portion of the award reads as under: - - "1. That the Respondent Corporation was justified in suspending the Sales and Supplies of the Claimant and the act of suspension is valid and proper in light of above discussed factual and legal matrix.
(2.) THAT the serving of the Show Cause Notice dated 03/03/2015 is in the form of opportunity given to Claimant to provide explanations and as such cannot be considered as legally invalid. That the Claimant is not entitled to Claim of Rs. 16,18,000/ - as Claimant has failed to carry out his obligations as per Dealership Agreement and in light of above referred clause No. 33 and 46 of the Dealership Agreement and hence Claimant cannot be allowed to be benefitted out of his wrong/irregularity.
(3.) BOTH the parties i.e. Claimant and Respondent shall bear their respective expenses and costs." 2. In substance, the sole arbitrator was concerned with the dispute pertaining to suspension of sales and supplies of the petitioner -claimant and its claim worth Rs. 16,18,000/ - and both these issues were decided by the sole arbitrator against the petitioner -claimant. Being aggrieved by the arbitral award, the petitioner made an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') before the District & Sessions Judge, Merta City which is still pending consideration. 3. It so happened that after the arbitral award, taking note of its finding, justifying suspension of ales and supplies of the petitioner, the respondent -HPCL by its order dated 13.08.2015 (Annex.8) terminated the dealership agreement of the petitioner. It is said order which is a cause of grievance for the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner has laid this writ petition to assail the same. 4. Precisely in the writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the impugned order on the ground that the arbitral proceedings have not attained finality inasmuch as its application for setting aside arbitral award is still pending consideration before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Merta. In that background, the petitioner has urged that the arbitral award has not become enforceable under Section 36 of the Act and, therefore, the impugned action is per se bad in law. For substantiating this assertion, the petitioner has specifically pleaded in the writ petition that the subject matter of the arbitral proceedings is having direct nexus with the impugned order and, therefore, it was not desirable from the respondent -HPCL to take adverse decision of terminating the dealership agreement. The petitioner has also contended that issuance of impugned order has jeopardised the entire proceedings under the Act and it is likely to prejudice the cause of the petitioner which he has agitated before the learned District & Sessions Judge. A specific ground is urged in the writ petition that respondents are taking steps to take possession of the retail outlet inspite of the fact that matter is sub -judice before the Court and, therefore, the rights of the petitioner be protected so that its claim may not be frustrated.;