JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shikhar Anand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties 2 and 3. 2. Instant writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the impugned order dated 16.11.2012, passed by the Chief Regional Manager of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation terminating the dealership agreement dated 4.2.2008 on the ground of failure of nozzle sample test. 3 While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an earlier judgment of this court dated 14.8.2013 passed in writ petition No.9848(M/B) of 2012 M/s. Raj Kaushal Filling Station through its Prop. Poonam Verma versus Union of India and others. 4. In the case of Raj Kaushal (supra), this Court after considering the guidelines which are admittedly applicable to the present case arrived to the conclusion that the Chief Regional Manager lacks jurisdiction to take a decision on the basis of lab test report. Operative portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under : "33. It may be noted that appellate forum provided under para 6.3.5 is higher forum then General Manager. For convenience relevant portion from Para 6.3.5 of the MDG 2005 is reproduced as under: - "The decision taken on action against the dealer based on the reply received form him for the show cause notice has to be communicated to the dealer in writing and this should be a speaking order. In the event of termination, the dealer, within 30 days of the Order, will have the right to appeal before the appropriate authority who will be empowered to decide in the matter. The appeal must be disposed of within 90 days from the date of the appeal. The appropriate authority to hear the appeals shall be by an officer not below the rank of Executive Director." 34. In view of above, Regional Manager seems to be lack jurisdiction to take a decision on the basis of lab test report, hence, order with regard to revocation of agreement suffers from want of jurisdiction. 35. Since, we are of the view that impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction, without entering into other ground raised and pleaded in the writ petition, we allow the writ petition on this sole ground. " 5. While defending the impugned order, Mr. 35. Since, we are of the view that impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction, without entering into other ground raised and pleaded in the writ petition, we allow the writ petition on this sole ground. " 5. While defending the impugned order, Mr. Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for the opposite parties 2 and 3 submits that in view of Apex Court's judgment reported in (2007)14 SCC 680 Empire Jute Co. Ltd. and other versus Jute Corporation of India Ltd. and another, the matter should have been relegated to the arbitration in view of arbitration clause contained in the agreement. He further submits that in view of arbitration clause, the writ petition is not maintainable. He further submits that the General Manager was associated with the controversy in question and he has accorded approval to the decision taken by the Chief Regional Manager. 6. We have considered the argument advanced the parties' counsel at length and perused the record. 7. Admittedly, the impugned order has been passed by the Chief Regional Manager who does not seem to have jurisdiction in view of the law settled by this Court (supra). 8. So far as the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that in view of arbitration clause, the matter should be relegated to the arbitrator and the writ petition is not maintainable does not seem to be sustainable for the reason that the impugned order has been passed by the authority who was not competent for the purpose. In case an order is passed by an authority without jurisdiction, then in view of the Apex Court's judgment reported in 1987(13) ALR 680 Dr.(Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta versus Mgt. of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur etc., this Court is not precluded to exercise jurisdiction and set aside the order passed by the incompetent person. In case the order would have been passed by an authority having competence to do so, controversy could have been relegated to the arbitrator. 9. So far as the association of the General Manager or the approval granted by him is concerned, it does not seem to borne out from the impugned order. The impugned order does not reveal that the Chief Regional Manager while passing it has taken prior approval from the General Manager who is competent authority under the guidelines issued by the Government of India. 10. The impugned order does not reveal that the Chief Regional Manager while passing it has taken prior approval from the General Manager who is competent authority under the guidelines issued by the Government of India. 10. In view of above, we are of the view that since the impugned order has been passed by an authority who lacks jurisdiction, the writ petition is maintainable and the writ petition is liable to be allowed with liberty to proceed afresh by the competent authority empowered under the guidelines (supra). 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 16.11.2012 (Annexure No.1) with consequential benefits. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to take a fresh decision in the light of the observation made by this Court in the case of Raj Kaushal (supra).? 12. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.