JUDGMENT Honble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri Arvind Kumar Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Prakash Padia appears for the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (in short the Corporation). The pleadings have been exchanged. With the consent of parties, the writ petition was finally heard. 2. The petitioner is a dealer of the Corporation and carries on business of retail sales and supplies of petroleum products, on the plot of land owned by him, under an agreement dated June 7, 1990 executed between the petitioner and the Corporation in the ‘Open General Category’. 3. A team of officers of the Corporation visited the retail outlet on January 19, 2006. By a letter dated January 30, 2006 the petitioner was required to explain the reasons of the following irregularities : “1. MS DU Z-Line was found to be delivering excess by 60 ml in 5 Lts for which recalibration of DU was advised. You were supposed to get the DU recalibrated in the presence of an Officer of IOC. No information has been received till date. 2. Air Facility was not available. 3. Housekeeping was very poor. 4. Weights & measure seals of Z-Line MS Du assembly was loose. It has further been reported that the Pump Manager was present at the RO when the inspecting team reached the RO. One of the partners came to the RO within 5 minutes and a few minutes later a mob of 30-40 people gathered at the RO with a threatening stance. Some of them were armed with Lathis and tried to intimidate the inspecting team. This has been viewed very seriously. You are advised to explain, within 7 days of receipt of this letter, as to why the mob was collected at the RO with intention to intimidate the inspecting team. You are also advised to explain, within 7 days of receipt of this letter, the reasons for above irregularities.” 4. On receiving the petitioner’s reply a show cause notice was issued to him on 31.3.2006 to explain as to why his dealership be not terminated. The petitioner submitted a reply on April 17, 2007, stating that on 19.1.2006 there was some puja ceremony at Sourabh Brick Works, also owned by him. The respectable persons of the society as well as the villagers were present at the ceremony. The petitioner submitted a reply on April 17, 2007, stating that on 19.1.2006 there was some puja ceremony at Sourabh Brick Works, also owned by him. The respectable persons of the society as well as the villagers were present at the ceremony. After finishing the puja the members of the Udyog Vyapar Pratinidhi Mandal, Nawabganj reached the retail outlet to collect donations. These persons were never called by the petitioner and did not create any hindrance in the inspection. With regard to recalibration of the delivery unit, the petitioner explained that on the advise of the inspecting team the unit was recalibrated by the officers of the Weights & Measurement Department, and that only thereafter the sales were resumed. The petitioner did not accept that the seal was found loose. He was only advised to get the delivery unit recalibrated. The advice was accepted and unit was recalibrated. 5. The General Manager of the Corporation, by his order dated October 30, 2006, terminated the dealership on the following violations : “(a) Clause 2 (b) of MDG-2005 for tampering with Weights and Measure seal, which was found loose and the unit was giving excess delivery. (b) Clause 58 (m) of dealership agreement, for gathering a mob of people armed with ‘lathis’ with an intent to intimidate the inspecting officials.” The petitioner filed an appeal under clause 6.3.5 (iv) of the Marketing Guidelines. The appeal was dismissed with the observations: “Having carefully considered submissions made by the appellant in his letter of appeal and personal hearing and after perusing all the relevant record my observations are as under : The irregularities of loose W&M seal of DU and excess delivery has been accepted by the appellant firm vide inspection report dated 19.1.2006. Moreover, vide letter dated 3.2.2006 the appellant has confirmed that the Z-line DU which was making 80 ml excess delivery and whose seal was loose has been recalibrated and certificate has been obtained. Therefore, State Office is correct in not accepting the appellant’s contention in his reply dated 17.4.2006 to show cause that the W&M Deptt. Official did not find the seal as loose or the appellant has not accepted that the seal was loose. Thus the appellant has violated clause 2 (b) of MDG regarding tampering of W&M seal. Therefore, State Office is correct in not accepting the appellant’s contention in his reply dated 17.4.2006 to show cause that the W&M Deptt. Official did not find the seal as loose or the appellant has not accepted that the seal was loose. Thus the appellant has violated clause 2 (b) of MDG regarding tampering of W&M seal. The scope of hearing by the appellate authority is limited to review of action taken under irregularities covered under MDG and not for other irregularities. The termination of the appellant’s dealership is in order on account of violation of MDG 2005. There is nothing to interfere with the order of the Corporation dated 30.10.2006 and hence the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- Appellate Authority 25.9.2007 A.M.K. Sinha” 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the orders passed by the Corporation and the appellate authority under the Marketing Guidelines are grossly arbitrary, irrational and is a disproportionate executive action. The petitioner did not accept the irregularities of loose W&M seal of the delivery unit. The excess delivery by Motor Spirit Dip Unit did not amount to malpractice. There could be no reason for which the petitioner will sell the petroleum products in excess and consequently suffer losses. The fact, that the petitioner accepted the advice to get the delivery unit recalibrated, was not the admission of any irregularity. The officers of the Weights and Measurement Department, performed statutory duties. The presence of the officers of the Indian Oil Corporation, was not felt necessary and that after the unit was recalibrated to which no objection was taken the petitioner started selling petroleum products. The persons, who had assembled at the petrol pump, neither intimidated nor created any obstruction in the inspections. The apprehensions of the inspecting teach could not be a ground to take the extreme steps of the termination of the dealership. 7. Shri Arvind Kumar Shukla has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Pestonji Brothers Clutterbuckganj, Bareilly, U.P. v. Deputy General Manager (I/C) M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others in Writ Petition No. 32187 of 2007 decided on 3.1.2007, in which on almost similar facts where no malpractice, adulteration and short supplies was found and that allegations were only with regard to violations of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines 2005, the Court had interfered and set aside the action of the termination of the agency. 8. 8. Shri Prakash Padia, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner is bound by the ‘Memorandum of Agreement’ dated June 7, 1990. of which Clause-69 provides for a reference of any dispute or difference or any nature whatsoever to the sole arbitration to Director (Marketing) of the Corporation or some officers of the Corporation who may be nominated by the Director (Marketing). He has relied upon provisions of Section 5 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and the judgments in P. Anand Gajapathi Raju v. P.V.G. Raj, (2000) 4 SCC 639; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Pink City Midway Petroleum, (2003) 6 SCC 503 ; A.B.L. International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation, (2004) 3 SCC 553 ; Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Verma Transport, (2006) 7 SCC 275 ; Bharat Sewa Sansthan v. U.P. Electronics Corporation Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 737; Agri Gold Ltd. v. Sri Laxmi Knits & Woven, (2007) 3 SCC 686 and The Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. The Jute Corporation of India Ltd., JT 2007 (12) SC 391. 9. Shri Prakash Padia submits that in contractual matters, the scope of judicial review is extremely limited and that in such matters the writ petitions are ordinarily not maintainable. He relies upon judgment in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 ; State of U.P. v. Brij and Roof C., (1996) 6 SCC 22 ; Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil, (2000) 6 SCC 293 ; National Highway Authority of India v. Ganga Enterprises, (2003) 7 SCC 410 ; and Sanjana M. Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 242 . 10. The petitioner’s dealership agreement was terminated by the General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation on October 30, 2006, and the appeal under the Marketing Guidelines was dismissed by the Executive Director, Retail Sales, Indian Oil Corporation/the Appellate Authority on September 25, 2006 on the ground of violation of Marketing Discipline Guidelines 2005. The grounds of cancellation of the agreement are, that the weights and measures seal on the L&T Z-Line DU of MS was loose and DU was delivering excess by 80 ml in 5 ltrs. The inspecting team advised the petitioner to stop the sales till further advice and to get the DU recalibrated. The dealer accepted that the seal in the said MS DU was loose. No explanation for loose seal was given. The inspecting team advised the petitioner to stop the sales till further advice and to get the DU recalibrated. The dealer accepted that the seal in the said MS DU was loose. No explanation for loose seal was given. Loose seal has to be treated as tampering of seal. Recalibration had to be done in the presence of IOC Officer. They were not informed with the recalibration. The inspecting team had advised to stop the sale till further advice but the dealer resumed sales without even intimating the Corporation and thus Clause-2 (b) of MDG-2005 were violated. Further Clause-58 (m) of dealership agreement was violated in gathering of a mob of people armed with lathis with an intent to intimidate the inspecting party. 11. There are no allegations of adulteration, malpractices or shortage of stock. The fact, that the seal was loose, would not by itself constitute the proof of the tampering with the seal. The petitioner accepted the advice and got the dispensing unit recalibrated before resuming the sales. The General Manager terminating the dealership dated October 30, 2005 did not make any such allegation that the recalibration had to be made only in the presence of officers of the Corporation. The excess delivery by the dispensing unit could be a calibration fault. The dealer immediately rectified it as it would have caused further losses to him. The advice was well taken. He could not have received any benefit out of the excess delivery by calibration fault. 12. The gathering of the mob at the time of inspection is a common occurrence on the inspections in this part of the country. The unemployed youth and persons passing by often assemble on anything unusual by the side of the road. In this case the presence of mob was explained by the petitioner. On account of a puja ceremony at the brick kiln owned by the petitioner and the arrival of the members of the “Vyapar Mandal" to collect donations, some people assembled at the time of inspections. They did not intimidate or extend any threats to the inspecting party. Their intention to intimidate the inspecting officials was the opinion of the inspecting party, which could not be a ground for cancellation of the dealership. There is no material on record to support their opinion. They did not intimidate or extend any threats to the inspecting party. Their intention to intimidate the inspecting officials was the opinion of the inspecting party, which could not be a ground for cancellation of the dealership. There is no material on record to support their opinion. The General Manager or the appellate authority have not relied upon the statement of any of the officers of the inspecting party or relied upon their opinion in the inspection note. 13. In case any dispute or difference of any nature whatsoever, or regarding any right, liability, act, omission or account of any of the parties hereto arising out of or in relation to this agreement under Section 69, the matter had to be referred to the sole arbitrator of the Director Marketing of the Corporation or of some officer of the Corporation who may be nominated by the Director Marketing. The Indian Oil Corporation is a party to the agreement. If the petitioner committed any breach of MDG-2005, the Indian Oil Corporation should have referred the matter to the arbitral tribunal of the Director Marketing, of the Corporation. The decision to first terminate the agreement on the ground of violation of any of its clauses and thereafter compel the other party to resort to arbitration of the officer of the Corporation is like being the judge of its own cause. The General Manager of the Indian Oil Corporation is vested with the powers to terminate the agreement, and the Executive Director, (Retail Sales), Indian Oil Corporation is the Appellate Authority. They were not authorised to take unilateral decisions and then ask the petitioner to challenge whether there was any breach of agreement before the Arbitrator, who is lower in rank to the Appellate Authority. 14. Coming to the merit of the objections, I do not find any clause in the agreement that a loose weights and measures seal, (which may not be an offence under the Weights and Measurements Act) and the resultant excess delivery could be a violation of clause-2 (b) of the MDG-2005. It is in any case not a violation of any of the terms of the agreement. 15. Shri Prakash Padia tried to justify the violation as a breach of Clause-44, corresponding to the violation of the MDG-2005. Clause-44 is quoted as below : “44. It is in any case not a violation of any of the terms of the agreement. 15. Shri Prakash Padia tried to justify the violation as a breach of Clause-44, corresponding to the violation of the MDG-2005. Clause-44 is quoted as below : “44. The Dealer undertakes faithfully and promptly to carry out, observe and perform all directions or rules given or made from time to time by the Corporation for the proper carrying on of the dealership of the Corporation. The Dealer shall scrupulously observe and comply with all laws, rules, regulations and requisitions of the Central/State Government and of all authorities appointed by them or either of them including in particular the Chief Inspector of Explosive, Government of India, and/or any other local authority with regard to the storage and sale of such petroleum products.” 16. Shri Prakash Padia further submits that the second violation would be a breach of Clause-58 (m) of the terms of the agreement. Clause 58 (m) reads : “58 (m) If the Dealer shall either by himself or by his servants or Agents commit or suffers in committed any act which in the opinion of the General Manager of the Corporation for the time being in whose decision shall be final, is prejudicial to the interest or good name of the Corporation, or its products, the General Manager shall not be bound to give reason for such decision.” 17. The excess sale on account of a loose seal or a calibration fault in the assembly of persons at the time of inspection would not be a breach of either Clause 44 or 58 (m) of the agreement. The termination of the agreement was, therefore, not only arbitrary but was also irrational and grossly disproportionate to the allegations made in the show cause notice. The termination of an agreement for retail dealer of petroleum products causes serious civil consequences. The retail dealer has to make considerable expenses for running the retail outlet. The action of termination of the agreement as such should be taken carefully. 18. Rationality is a term related to the idea of reason. It has dual aspects. One of the aspects associates it with apprehension, intelligence or inference. The other aspect associates rationality with explanation, understanding and justification. A logical reason is rational, if it is logically valid. Rationality, however, is a broader term than logic. 18. Rationality is a term related to the idea of reason. It has dual aspects. One of the aspects associates it with apprehension, intelligence or inference. The other aspect associates rationality with explanation, understanding and justification. A logical reason is rational, if it is logically valid. Rationality, however, is a broader term than logic. It also includes “uncertain but sensible”, argument based on probability, expectation, personal experience. The logic on the other hand deals with provable facts, and demonstrably valid relations between them. The executive action must be rational and should satisfy the test with logical reasoning. In the present case the inspecting party found on the inspection that the irregularity of loose W & M seal of dispensing unit and excess delivery was accepted by the firm. The dispensing unit Z-line was making 80 ml. excess delivery. The seal was loose and needed calibration. The petitioner got the recalibration done from the competent authorities and started dispensing petroleum products, for his own benefit and to save the loss that he may be incurring in the process. If the loose W & M seal of the dispensing unit resulted into short supply, the petitioner could not be faulted with the irregularity for imposing punishment. The deductive logic that loose W & M seal of dispensing unit would amount to tampering, is a highly irrational conclusion. 19. The other allegation of the gathering of about 40 persons with lathis, and their intimidating stance without any overt or covert act on their part was just an opinion of the inspecting party. It was an action based on the opinion of a person, who may have his own fears of the presence of a mob. It may have been a latent fear, which projected into an adverse report. The petitioner should have been supplied with a copy of the opinion of the inspecting party. If it was not found necessary the authority, terminating the agreement should have shared and recorded the same opinion. A mere mention of the presence of mob with threatening stand, would again be an irrational decision, based on bounded rationality. Some people are hyper-rational and would never do anything to violate their preferences. Bounded rationality assumes that perfectly rational decisions are not feasible in practice. A mere mention of the presence of mob with threatening stand, would again be an irrational decision, based on bounded rationality. Some people are hyper-rational and would never do anything to violate their preferences. Bounded rationality assumes that perfectly rational decisions are not feasible in practice. Now if either of the facts and circumstances could not lead to a decision to terminate the tenancy, both the reasons also would be of same consequences. 20. The decision to terminate the tenancy is also disproportionate. The violation of Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2005 include many marketing decisions by the Corporation, which keep varying from time to time. A good market practice would not necessarily be a violation, which may lead to termination of the contract. The proportionality is a principle, where the Court is concerned with the process, method or manner in which the decision maker has ordered his priorities, reached a conclusion or arrived at a decision. The very essence of decision making consists in attribution of relative importance to the factors and considerations in the case. The question of proportionality focuses on the true nature of the exercise—the elaboration of a rule of permissible priorities. 21. In Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank v. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Assn. and another, (2007) 4 SCC 669 , the Supreme Court held : “19. de Smith states that “proportionality” involves “balancing test” and “necessity test”. Whereas the former (balancing test) permits scrutiny of excessive onerous penalties or infringement of rights or interest and a manifest imbalance of relevant considerations, the latter (necessity test) requires infringement of human rights to the least restrictive alternative. [Judicial Review of Administrative Action (1995), pp. 601-05, para 13.085; see also Wade & Forsyth: Administrative Law (2005), p. 366.] 20. In Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Edn.), Reissue, Vol. 1 (1), pp. 144-45, para 78, it is stated : “The Court will quash exercise of discretionary powers in which there is no reasonable relationship between the objective which is sought to be achieved and the means used to that end, or where punishments imposed by administrative bodies or inferior Courts are wholly out of proportion to the relevant misconduct. The principle of proportionality is well established in European law, and will be applied by English Courts where European law is enforceable in the domestic Courts. The principle of proportionality is well established in European law, and will be applied by English Courts where European law is enforceable in the domestic Courts. The principle of proportionality is still at a stage of development in English law; lack of proportionality is not usually treated as a separate ground for review in English law, but is regarded as one indication of manifest unreasonableness.” 21. The doctrine has its genesis in the field of administrative law. The Government and its departments, in administering the affairs of the country, are expected to honour their statements of policy or intention and treat the citizens with full personal consideration without abuse of discretion. There can be no “pick and choose”, selective applicability of the Government norms or unfairness, arbitrariness or unreasonableness. It is not permissible to use a “sledgehammer to crack a nut”. As has been said many a time: “where paring knife suffices, battle axe is precluded.” 22. In the celebrate decision of Council of Civil Service Union v. Minister for Civil Service Lord Diplock proclaimed : “Judicial review has I think developed to a stage today when, without reiterating any analysis of the steps by which the development has come about, one can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds on which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground I would call ‘illegality’, the second ‘irrationality’ and the third ‘procedural impropriety’. That is not to say that further development on a case-by-case basis may not in course of time add further grounds. I have in mind particularly the possible adoption in the future of the principle of ‘proportionality’.....” (Emphasis supplied) 23. CCSU has been reiterated by English Courts in several subsequent cases. We do not think it necessary to refer to all those cases. 24. So far as our legal system is concerned, the doctrine is well settled. Even prior to CCSU, this Court has held that if punishment imposed on an employee by an employer is grossly excessive, disproportionately high or unduly harsh, it cannot claim immunity from judicial scrutiny, and it is always open to a Court to interfere with such penalty in appropriate cases. 25. In Hind Construction & Engg. Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, some workers remained absent from duty treating a particular day as holiday. They were dismissed from service. The Industrial Tribunal set aside the action. 25. In Hind Construction & Engg. Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, some workers remained absent from duty treating a particular day as holiday. They were dismissed from service. The Industrial Tribunal set aside the action. This Court held that the absence could have been treated as leave without pay. The workmen might have been warned and fined. (But) “It is impossible to think that any other reasonable employer would have imposed the extreme punishment of dismissal on its entire permanent staff in this manner”. The Court concluded that the punishment imposed on the workman was “not only severe and out of proportion to the fault, but one which, in our judgment, no reasonable employer would have imposed”. 26. In Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry v. Workmen, the allegation against the employee of the Federation was that he issued legal notices to the Federation and to the International Chamber of Commerce which brought discredit to the Federation-the employer. Domestic inquiry was held against the employee and his services were terminated. The punishment was held to be disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and established. This Court observed that : “[T]he Federation had made a mountain out of a mole hill and made a trivial matter into one involving loss of its prestige and reputation.” 27. In Ranjit Thakur referred to earlier, an army officer did not obey the lawful command of his superior officer by not eating food offered to him. Court-martial proceedings were initiated and a sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year was imposed. He was also dismissed from service, with added disqualification that he would be unfit for future employment”. 22. In P. Anand Gajapathi Raju’s case (supra) the Apex Court held that once the matter is referred to the arbitration, the proceedings in civil Court shall stand disposed of. In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.’s case (supra) it was held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to continue with a suit, once an application under Section 8 has been filed. In this case the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. had stopped the supplies to the respondent dealer on the ground of commission of misconduct by the dealer. A civil suit was filed in reply to which the Corporation filed an application under Section 8 read with Section 5 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 in referring the dispute to the Arbitrator as per the arbitration clause. A civil suit was filed in reply to which the Corporation filed an application under Section 8 read with Section 5 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 in referring the dispute to the Arbitrator as per the arbitration clause. The civil Court rejected the application saying that it had no jurisdiction to do so. In that situation the refusal to refer the dispute to the arbitration amounted to failure of justice. In A.B.L. International Ltd.s case (supra) it was held that normally the High Court would not involve itself under Article 226 with the disputed questions of the fact, which require consideration of evidence. In Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd.’s case (supra) a civil suit for permanent injunction was filed restraining the appellant from blacklisting the firm or terminating the consignment agency contract. The application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act by Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. was rejected. The Supreme Court held that what is needed is a finding on the part of the judicial authority that the party had waived its right to invoke the arbitration clause. 23. In Bharat Sewa Sansthan’s case, the Supreme Court explained that the object of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is to make provisions for an arbitral procedure which is fair, efficient and capable of meeting the needs of the specific arbitration and to minimise the supervisory role of Courts in the arbitral tribunal to use mediation, conciliation or other procedures during the arbitral proceedings in settlement of disputes. It was found that in that case the dispute raised by appellant’s Sansthan against the respondent-Corporation in terms of the arbitration clause could be tackled and adjudicated upon by the arbitration clause. 24. Alternative remedy is not absolute bar to exercise writ jurisdiction. In Sanjana M. Wig (Ms) v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, (2005) 8 SCC 242 , the Supreme Court, following ABL International Ltd. (supra); Harbans Lal Sahni v. Indian Oil Corporation, (2003) 2 SCC 107 and Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1 , held in para 14: “14. A Division Bench of this Court in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. observed that in certain cases even a disputed question of fact can be gone into by the Court entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, holding : (SCC p. 572, para 28) “28. A Division Bench of this Court in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. observed that in certain cases even a disputed question of fact can be gone into by the Court entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, holding : (SCC p. 572, para 28) “28. However, while entertaining an objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court should bear in mind the fact that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution. The High Court having regard to the facts of the case has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. The Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions in the exercise of this power. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks) and this plenary right of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ will not normally be exercised by the Court to the exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the constitutional mandate of Article 14 or for other valid and legitimate reasons, for which the Court thinks it necessary to exercise the said jurisdiction.” 25. The presence of the arbitration clause, is not to drive away a genuine grievance arising out of disproportionate action of the Corporation, to the arbitral tribunal which in any case will not have the authority to give an award to restore the dealership. In the present case, the Indian Oil Corporation terminated the agreement relying upon the clauses, which were not attracted and on the Marketing Discipline Guidelines framed for facilitating the marketing of the petroleum products on the principles of good governance and excellent customary service. The preamble to the guidelines itself provide that the guidelines need to be constantly updated to meet the customer satisfaction and to the discipline dealership network and for preventing malpractices in the sale of petroleum products. 26. The loosely calibrated seal, which was not found to be an offence by the officers of the Weights & Measurements Department and which did not result into any mal-practice, adulteration or short supplies, would not be a breach of Clause-44 of the agreement. 26. The loosely calibrated seal, which was not found to be an offence by the officers of the Weights & Measurements Department and which did not result into any mal-practice, adulteration or short supplies, would not be a breach of Clause-44 of the agreement. Every direction given on a unilateral formulation of the guidelines for marketing discipline and revised from time to time, to improve customer satisfaction and to discipline dealership network would not be a ground which would fall under Clause-44, and invite to extreme punishment of cancellation of the agreement. If that be so the mistake in using pink copy instead of yellow in the invoice; or keeping a toilet dirty, may be used as a ground to terminate the agreement. The opinion of the inspecting party that the mob gathered on the spot, for reasons which were not considered, and that their presence intimidated the inspecting officials will definitely not fall in Clause-58 (m) of the agreement. 27. The Indian Oil Corporation has not filed any application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. The insistence of the Corporation to ask the petitioner to resort to arbitration clause where its action cannot be sustained on any of the breach of the terms of the agreement would be the anti-thesis of the provisions of alternative disputes redressal, provided in the agreement. The Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not insist upon of a party to resort to the ADR where it finds that the action of the dominant party to the agreement was illegal, arbitrary, irrational and disproportionate. The alternative dispute redressal mechanism is not provided to cause injustice to a party, who agreed to arbitration under the contract, in good faith. If the Corporation was satisfied that the petitioner has committed breach of agreement, it was for the Corporation to have resorted to arbitration by making an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It could not have asked the petitioner to go for arbitration after the General Manager of the Corporation and the Executive Director (Retails Sales) of the Corporation took a decision that the termination was justified. The law aids in delivery of justice. It should not be oppressive to perpetrate injustice. 28. The writ petition is allowed. It could not have asked the petitioner to go for arbitration after the General Manager of the Corporation and the Executive Director (Retails Sales) of the Corporation took a decision that the termination was justified. The law aids in delivery of justice. It should not be oppressive to perpetrate injustice. 28. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 25.9.2007 passed by respondent No. 3, and the order dated 30.10.2006 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure-9 & 7 (B)) are set aside. The respondent-Corporation will allow the petitioner to continue with the business/licence, and resume the supplies of petroleum products to the petitioner. ————