JUDGMENT 1. This is an application filed by the petitioner questioning a portion the award passed by Sole Arbitrator Mr. P.Rajagopalan on lath January 2010. 2. The fact remains that the petitioner was a LPG Distributor of the respondent "HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD." having it office at P-4, Oil Installation Road, Paharpur, Kolkata-700 088, in the tow of Burdwan in the state of West Bengal. Disputes and differences aros between the petitioner and the respondent by reason of termination of dealership affected by the respondent by its letter dated 15th January, 2009 Such disputes and differences were referred to arbitration in terms of arbitration clause in the dealership agreement dated 13th June, 2005. According to clause 38 of the dealership agreement any dispute or difference of any nature whatsoever or regarding any rights, liability, act, omission on account of any of the parties hereto arising out or in relation to the agreement shall be referred to the Sole Arbitrator of the Managing Director of the Corporation or of some officer of the Corporation who may be nominated h the Managing Director. It further provides from the said clause 38 that the Arbitrator shall have power to order and direct either of the parties to abide by, observe and perform all such directions as the Arbitrator may think fit having regard to the matter in difference i.e. dispute before him. The Arbitrator shall have all summary powers and may take such evidence oral and documentary as the Arbitrator in his absolute discretion thinks fit and shall be entitled to exercise all powers under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 including admission of any affidavit as evidence or the matter in difference i.e. dispute before him. The Arbitrator shall be at liberty to appoint, if necessary, any Accountant or Engineer or other technical person to assist him, and to act by the opinion so taken. 3. Pursuant to the said clause Arbitrator entered into the dispute and statement of claim filed by the petitioner before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator shall be at liberty to appoint, if necessary, any Accountant or Engineer or other technical person to assist him, and to act by the opinion so taken. 3. Pursuant to the said clause Arbitrator entered into the dispute and statement of claim filed by the petitioner before the Arbitrator. Reply to the statement of claim along with counter claim was also filed by the respondent Learned Arbitrator after hearing learned Counsel of the respective parties and upon perusal of all the records, documents and written notes of submissions/arguments concluded to the effect that actions of the respondents are violative of principles of natural justice and even after imposition penalty, which was paid by the petitioner, dealership of the petitioner wm terminated which is double punishment. The punishment is contrary to the Market Discipline Guidelines and further petitioner is entitled to get restoration of dealership. 4. In clause 37 the learned Arbitrator recorded that in his opinion the arbitration proceedings is based on two parts. First part is legal aspects of the termination of the distributorship and second part is related to handling of distributorship in a casual and arbitrary manner by the controlling officer of the respondent corporation. He also recorded that the distributorship is guided by the Marketing Discipline Guidelines and so far the first offence is concerned penalty was imposed and so far the second offence is concerned after receipt of explanation from the petitioner penalty has been imposed and the penalty was paid by the claimant and therefore there is no cause of action on the side of the respondent who issued termination letter dated 15th January, 2009. It was also recorded by him that the distributorship was under suspension from January 8 and as such the distributor could not have indulged in any more irregularity, which calls for termination either as per Marketing Discipline Guidelines or as per relevant clauses in the dealership agreement. He has come to the conclusion that the suspension of the dealership should have been revoked after the penal action for second offence was taken vide letter dated 24th July, 2008 and there was no justification for the respondent to continue with the suspension beyond 24th July, 2008. He has come to the conclusion that the suspension of the dealership should have been revoked after the penal action for second offence was taken vide letter dated 24th July, 2008 and there was no justification for the respondent to continue with the suspension beyond 24th July, 2008. It was also decided by the learned Arbitrator that the respondent should have acted upon the second offence either in invoking the provision of Marketing Discipline Guidelines or as per the relevant clause in dealership agreement. Awarding double punishment for the same offence can not be justified by any means, which is a clear violation of principle of natural justice. He further decided that the action of the respondent to continue with the suspension even after action has been taken for the second offence vide letter dated 24th July, 2008 is arbitrary in nature and also unjustifiable by all means. The Arbitrator also decided that after exercising the option available as per Marketing Discipline Guidelines to the respondent, to penalise the claimant for irregularities for second offence it was not a reasonable and justifiable action taken by the respondent in terminating the dealership and that also under Clause 28B which in fact imposed double punishment for same offence specially when for such violation penalty was imposed and such penalty was paid by the petitioner. Ultimately the learned Arbitrator rejected the claim of the petitioner for restoration of dealership and passed the following award: "55(a) With regards to the Claimant's claim to declare the purported termination effected by letter dated, 15-1-09 is illegal and cancellation there of, I, as an arbitrator, is not vested with power under Arbitration and Conciliation Act; 1996 and clause 38 of the dealership Agreement vide which I was appointed to adjudicate the disputes & differences to cancel the letter of termination issued by the respondent vide letter dated 15.1.09, unmindful of the fact that in similar cases referred above the Hon'ble Supreme Court held the view that a commercial contract which is determinable, can not be restored by the Arbitrator once terminated. In my view the respondent has erred in terminating the distributorship under clause 28B, after a gap of 6 months after the Claimant has been penalizes for the same offence which I held is bad in law and also against Principle of Natural Justice. In my view the respondent has erred in terminating the distributorship under clause 28B, after a gap of 6 months after the Claimant has been penalizes for the same offence which I held is bad in law and also against Principle of Natural Justice. (b) & (c) View above the Respondent is not vested with power to do so. (d) The Claimant's prayer is not maintainable and hence rejected However, since the termination of the distributorship under clause 28B is held by me as bad in law, in such a situation, under clause 29 of the Distributorship Agreement the Agreement is revocable by either party with out assigning any reason giving 30 days notice, the only relief could be granted to the Claimant is compensation for the notice, instead of restoration of the distributorship. The Claimant is entitled to compensation being the loss of earning for the notice period of 30 days. This view was held by Supreme Court in one of the cases similar in nature. (e) Both the parties to bear the expenses of the Arbitration equally and no order to cost." 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Chowdhury submitted that although the learned Arbitrator came to the conclusion that the termination of dealership agreement was made in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of the guidelines under Marketing Discipline Guidelines and imposed double punishment for same offence, the learned Arbitrator did not cancel the termination as well as the suspension on the plea that in view of the two Supreme Court judgments the entire matter is covered under private law field and therefore, no relief could be granted except compensation being the loss of earning for the notice period 30 days. He submitted that the learned Arbitrator while coming to the conclusion recorded that the entire action of the respondent authorities are illegal, arbitrary and viola,tive of principles of natural justice as well as contrary to the Marketing Discipline Guidelines. It is not at all covered under contractual matters and/or private law field but it is covered by the principles under public law field. It is not at all covered under contractual matters and/or private law field but it is covered by the principles under public law field. According to him as the learned Arbitrator has found that for first offence penalty was imposed and for second offence warning with penalty was imposed upon the petitioner and on both occasions the penalty was paid by the petitioner, there cannot be second punishment by imposing termination of the dealership agreement which is not even permissible under the Marketing Discipline Guidelines. 6. According to Mr. Chowdhury the award passed by the learned Arbitrator is opposed to public policy which in shockingly to the conscience of the Court. Learned Counsel has cited a decision of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Shaw Pipes Ltd., reported in 2003 SC 269. In support of his contention that the award which is, on the face of it, patently in violation of provision cannot be said to be in public interest. Such award is likely to adversely effect the administration of justice. The award could also be set aside if it is so unfair and unreasonable that it shocks the conscience of the Court and such award is against the public policy and required to be adjudged by it. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred the judgment reported in 1991 SCC 533 , Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Amritswar Gas Services & Ors. and referred paragraphs 7 and 8 to contend that, although the judgment has been relied upon by the learned Arbitrator, this judgment has no manner of application in the instant case. No breach of contract has arisen but as per the finding of the learned Arbitrator the termination as well as the suspension was made in violation of principles of natural justice which is fully in the public law domain. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also referred the judgment relied upon by the learned Arbitrator reported in 2007(7) SCC 764, E. Venkata Krishna vs. Indian Oil Corporation and states that in this case scope of arbitration clause was not before the Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also referred the judgment relied upon by the learned Arbitrator reported in 2007(7) SCC 764, E. Venkata Krishna vs. Indian Oil Corporation and states that in this case scope of arbitration clause was not before the Court. However, in the present case under clause 38 Arbitrator has wide power to decide all disputes and to order and direct either parties to abide, observe and perform all such directions as the Arbitrator may think having regard to the matter in difference i.e. dispute before him and the Arbitrator shall have all summary powers and make such evidence oral and/or documentary and the Arbitrator in his absolute discretion thinks fit and shall be entitled to exercise all powers under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. He submitted that in the present case it is clear finding of the learned Arbitrator that there is violation of principle of natural justice and it is specific finding of the learned Arbitrator that there is second time warning and penalty has been imposed. Therefore, the termination is not at all sustainable since it is double punishment which however, do not justify the termination of the dealership. According to him as per market discipline guideline only on third offence such termination is permissible. In the instant case it is clear finding of the learned Arbitrator that its second offence for which penalty has already been imposed and a warning has been issued. Therefore, the judgment is not at all attracted and the learned Arbitrator ought not t09 have relied upon the said judgment. He further submitted the case reported in Arbitration Law Reported 3008 (3) 489. Judgment delivered by a learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court wherein it was held by the said Court that the power given to the Court to set aside the award. necessarily to includes a power to modify the award, notwithstanding absence of express power to modify the award, as under the 1940 Act and he submitted that this Court has enough power to modify the award specially when it is the specific finding of the learned Arbitrator that there is violation of principle of natural justice so it is not in the brief of private law field error it should be tested in the helm of public law element. He cited another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in case of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs. Super Highway Services & Anr. wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the guidelines followed by the Corporation required that the dealer should be given prior notice regarding the test so that he or his representative can be present when the test is conducted and the statutory requirement is in accordance with the principles of natural justice and accordingly the special writ petition filed by Hindustan Petroleum corporation Ltd. was dismissed. Learned Counsel submits that in the present case also no notice was served before termination and principles of natural justice was not followed which is clear finding of the learned Arbitrator. Accordingly, he submits that the Court should modify the award or it can refer the matter before the learned Arbitrator for re-adjudication under section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits by referring a letter that although it is a finding of the learned Arbitrator that penalty was imposed for second offence and warning was given but it is in fact a third offence committed by the petitioner and the market discipline guideline stipulates that in case of third offence the only course is opened to terminate the dealership. He also relied upon the judgments referred by the learned arbitrator and submitted that under section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. This type of contracts which cannot be specifically enforced and section 16 of the same Act specified the persons in whose favour specific performance of a contract cannot be granted and he also submitted that this is a private contract. Therefore, the decision of the learned Arbitrator is right and the petitioner is entitled to get compensation and therefore, there is no question of restoration of dealership which has lawfully terminated by the respondent. He also submitted that although it is a case of third offence for which termination was done, but the learned Arbitrator has wrongly came to a finding that it is the second offence and therefore, the termination is bad. 8. I have gone through the materials available on record and considered the submissions made by the respective parties as well as judgment cited at the bar as well as the award passed by the learned Arbitrator. 8. I have gone through the materials available on record and considered the submissions made by the respective parties as well as judgment cited at the bar as well as the award passed by the learned Arbitrator. I find from the award that the learned Arbitrator have decided on facts and on evidence before him that this is a second offence for which penalty was imposed and have duly been paid by the petitioner and according to him such termination is not only illegal but also double punishment. This is not at all permissible in law. It was also his definite finding that the in the instant case no notice was issued before such termination and such termination order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and according to me the petitioner is entitled to get restoration of dealership and withdrawal of the suspension but unfortunately in view of the two Supreme Court decisions he has no other alternative but to award compensation instead of restoration of dealership and cancellation of suspension order. In my opinion the findings arrived at by the arbitrator are not at all covered under contractual matters and/or private law field but the same are covered by the principle under public law field and therefore the judgments, on the basis of which claim of the petitioner was refused, are not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Although a plea of third offence was raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent I do not find any such plea was ever raised by the respondent either before the learned Arbitrator or in their affidavit-in-opposition before this Hon'ble Court. This is purely a submission from the bar and since it is a pure question of fact I cannot go into it and decide the same. The learned Arbitrator upon considering facts have come to a conclusion that it was a second offence for which penalty was imposed which was duly paid by the petitioner. It is also evident that the termination of dealership was made in clear violation of Market Discipline Guidelines and even without following the procedure applicable in that regard. The learned Arbitrator upon considering facts have come to a conclusion that it was a second offence for which penalty was imposed which was duly paid by the petitioner. It is also evident that the termination of dealership was made in clear violation of Market Discipline Guidelines and even without following the procedure applicable in that regard. Accordingly, I reject such submission made by the Counsel for the respondents and hold that the award passed by the learned Arbitrator to the effect that the learned Arbitrator cannot allow restoration of distributorship but award compensation being the loss of earning for the period of 30 days, is illegal, arbitrary and not at all sustainable in law and opposed to public policy. Under such circumstances, I direct the respondent to restore the dealership within a period of three weeks from the date of service of this order and to cancel suspension order as passed by the respondent. 10. The application is thus disposed of. 11. There will be no order as to costs.