Writ Petition Is Not Maintainable When Effective And Efficacious Remedy In Form Of Arbitration Is Available: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court Bench of Chief Justice T.S. It said that the High Court would normally exercise its jurisdiction in 3 contingencies namely when the writ petition was filed for enforcement of any fundamental rights, where there has been violation of principle of natural justice, or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or where the vires of an Act is challenged. Then, the Single Bench allowed the writ petition and set aside the show cause notice and the order of termination and directed the appellant to resume supply of MS and HSD and other petroleum products. The court analysed three issues: Whether the IOCL pre-decided the matter while issuing the show cause notice, Whether there has been violation of principles of natural justice, Whether the writ petition was maintainable when the appeal remedy as well as remedy by way of arbitration has been provided under the Dealership Agreement, Whether the Marketing Discipline Guideline would be binding on the writ petitioner, On whom the burden lies to prove that there were no stock variations, Whether termination of the dealership of the respondent could be termed to be disproportionate. The court relied on the judgment in Whirlpool Corporation Versus Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others, wherein the court held that it cannot entertain writ petition if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would normally exercise its jurisdiction in 3 contingencies namely when the writ petition was filed for enforcement of any fundamental rights, where there has been violation of principle of natural justice, or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or where the vires of an Act is challenged.