(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue writ of certiorari quashing order dated 21.07.2025 No-Nil, issued by the respondent, vide Annexure-N and proceedings dated 23.07.2025 vide Annexure P of the respondent and etc.)

Oral Order

1. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking following prayer:

          "a) To issue writ of certiorari quashing order dated 21.07.2025 No-nil, issued by the respondent, vide Annexure-N and proceedings dated 23.07.2025 vide Annexure-P of the respondent;

          b) To issue order or direction deemed fit to this Hon'ble Court, in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Brief facts leading to rise to the filing this writ petition are as follows:

          The respondent appointed the petitioner as a Distributor to the area/location of Gorebal village, Sindhanur Taluk, Raichur district. The respondent issued show cause notice on 07.06.2017 to verify certain items mentioned in the notice. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice furnishing all the details by uploading on the system by complying to the compliance terms of the notice vide Annexure-E. On 25.06.2019, the petitioner submitted a request to supply cylinders to its agency as per the Notification vide Annexure-F. On 17.06.2019, the respondent sent an e-mail to the petitioner to surrender consumers, failing which disciplinary action will be taken. Hence, the impugned action is in violation of principles of natural justice and the same is without any basis with intention to harass the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the proceedings of the respondent taking over the distribution without giving an opportunity of being heard and without passing any order for such action. Hence, this writ petition.

3. The respondent filed statement of objections contending that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either on law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is also contended that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the material facts including various warnings, audit reports, show-cause notices and its own admissions regarding financial and operational irregularities. Such conduct disentitles the petitioner from any discretionary or equitable relief. It is also contended that the writ petition involves a disputed question of facts which requires detailed examination of documentary evidence, including audits, inspection records, and testimonies. Such disputed issues cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceedings and it is also contended that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under the terms of Distributionship Agreement dated 29.11.2023 which provides for redressal mechanisms i.e., Arbitration at Clause No.38 of the Distributionship Agreement dated 29.11.2023 executed between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner without exhausting alternative efficacious remedy has filed this writ petition. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel Sri Ravindra Reddy for the petitioner, and Sri Ganesh S. Kalaburagi, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the matter for some time, to a specific query posed by this Court that there is an equal efficacious remedy is available and without exhausting the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition. For that, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to secure instructions from the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition and hence the matter was passed over. Later, when the case was called out, despite the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner remained unrepresented.

6. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that if there is any dispute or difference whatsoever arising out of or in connection with an agreement, the petitioner has to invoke Clause-38 of the Distributionship Agreement dated 29.11.2023. He further submits that the petitioner without exhausting an alternative equal efficacious remedy filed this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and seeks to dismiss the writ petition.

7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

8. The respondent has produced the Distributionship Agreement dated 29.11.2023. I have perused the contents of the Distributionship Agreement, which provides an arbitration clause, which reads as follows:

          " 38. Any dispute or difference whatsoever arising out of or in connection with this Agreement including any question regarding its existence, validity, construction, interpretation, application, meaning, scope, operation or effect of this contract or termination thereof shall be referred to and finally resolved through arbitration as per the procedure mentioned hereinbelow:

          (a) The dispute or difference shall, in any event, be referred to only a solo arbitrator.

          (b) The appointment and arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with SCOPE forum of Arbitration rules for the time being in force or as amended from time to time.

          (c) The seat of Arbitration shall be Bengaluru.

          (d) The proceedings shall be conducted in English Language.

          The cost of the proceedings shall be equally borne by the parties, unless otherwise directed by the sole Arbitrator."

9. From the perusal of the above arbitration clause at Clause No.38, it clearly discloses that if any dispute or differences whatsoever arising out of or in connection with the agreement including any question regarding its existence, validity, etc., the same shall be referred to, and finally resolved through arbitration. In the case on hand, the respondent issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner for release of connections belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice. The dispute arises between the petitioner and respondent in connection with Distributionship Agreement. The said dispute shall be resolved through an arbitration. However, the petitioner herein without exhausting the alternative efficacious remedy i.e., the arbitration clause No.38, filed this writ petition. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

          i) The writ petition is dismissed.

          ii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to invoke arbitration clause, if so desire.

          In view of disposal of writ petition, I.A.No.2/2025 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, same is disposed of.