ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the termination notice dated 9-2-2012 issued by respondent 2 at Annexure-M1 to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking the that communication dated 20-3-2012 at Annexure-M whereby the request of the petitioner for resitement of the retail outlet has been rejected also be quashed. In that light, the petitioner is seeking issue of mandamus to the respondents to consider the representations dated 29-1-2012 and 25-3-2013 at Annexures-L and L1 and also the representations dated 2-4-2013 at Annexures-N and N1. 2. The respondents had initially granted the retail outlet business in the name of Sri M. Veerabhadraswamy to carry on the retail outlet business at Kunthoor Village, Kollegal Taluk, Chamarajnagar District during the year 1977. Due to the inability of the said Veerabhadraswamy due to old age to carry on with the business, the petitioner entered into a partnership and took over the business under a partnership deed dated 22-9-1999. In that light, the petitioner was to carry on the business at the same place where it was located. However, based on a subsequent agreement with the respondents herein, the said business was shifted to Mysore-Bangalore Road at Brahmapura Village, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District in the name and style of Prabudeva Service Station. 3. When this was the position, since according to the respondents the petitioner had failed to conduct the business in accordance with the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties and had not achieved the sale target despite there being sufficient scope to do so, the respondents terminated the agreement with the petitioner and thus discontinued the retail sales by the petitioner. At the point when such termination was sought to be made, the petitioner had represented to the respondents expressing the difficulty in achieving the sale target due to the changed situation where under, certain other retail outlets had come up in the area and in that light, the petitioner sought the that retail outlet, which had been originally located at Kunthoor Village, Kollegal Taluk, Chamarajnagar District be restored to the petitioner. The respondents, however, declined such request for the reasons as indicated by them in the reply. The respondents, however, declined such request for the reasons as indicated by them in the reply. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner had approached this Court and this Court at the first instance had granted the interim order and as such, the site in question has remained in the same position without any business being carried on by the petitioner or the respondents themselves. 4. The respondents have filed detailed objections to the petition and have disputed the claim put forth by the petitioner. According to the respondents, the claim as put forth by the petitioner the thatre is no scope for achieving the target has been denied and it is contended that due to the laxity on the part of the petitioner in carrying on the business, the sale target was not achieved. In addition to seeking to justify the action, the respondents have also contended that writ petition of the present nature would not be maintainable since, under Clause 67 of the agreement entered into between the parties, it provides for arbitration and the petitioner has already invoked the said clause but abandoned the proceedings. In addition, it is pointed out that a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in A.C. No. 1/13 was filed before the jurisdictional Court seeking interim measures but not having succeeded, the petitioner who is before this Court cannot maintain the instant petition. 5. In the light of the rival contentions, I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Counsel for the respondents and perused the petition papers. 6. Though the contentions have been urged with regard to the manner in which the business was required to be carried on and the sale target that was required to be achieved under the agreement and a contention is also put forth the that petitioner was not diligent in carrying on with the business, which has caused loss to the respondent, considering the fact the that parties had entered into an agreement and Clause 67 of the said agreement provided for resolution of the dispute between the parties by a sole arbitrator as provided therein, this aspect of the matter requires consideration at the outset. While taking note of the same, the fact the that petitioners had invoked the said clause also cannot be in dispute. While taking note of the same, the fact the that petitioners had invoked the said clause also cannot be in dispute. However, at this point in time, the document at Annexure-R6 produced along with I.A. No. 1 of 2016 by the respondents would disclose the that sole Arbitrator has terminated the proceedings for default on the part of the petitioner herein who was the claimant to the said proceedings from appearing and filing the claim statement and conducting the matter before the Arbitrator. 7. Therefore in such circumstances, more particularly, when disputed questions are raised with regard to the manner, in which the business was required to be conducted, the factual aspect as to whether there was scope for achieving the target and despite the same, petitioner did not achieve the said target, are all issues which will have to be decided based on the evidence that would be recorded in an appropriate proceeding and in the instant case, since it is already noticed the thatre is arbitration clause and the same is also been invoked, it is appropriate that even at this stage this Court will have to relegate the parties to the said proceedings. One other aspect, which is also to be kept in perspective at this juncture is that pursuant to the termination, which had been made by the respondents the petitioner had also made a representation seeking the that retail outlet be relocated to Kunthoor Village, Kollegal Taluk, Chamarajnagar District and the petitioner be permitted to carry on the business in the said place. In such circumstance, while the Arbitrator takes note of the dispute, which was already raised, an opportunity will also have to be provided to the petitioner to raise with regard to the resitement issue as a dispute to be considered by the Arbitrator while passing the award. 8. Hence, to the said extent, not only the issue relating to the termination of the agreement and the justification to do so but also the consideration as to whether the resitement should be permitted in the facts and circumstances keeping in view the fact situation at that point when the termination had occurred are all aspects, which is to be left open to be considered by the Arbitrator based on the rival pleadings and the evidence that will be put forth before the Arbitrator. Such consideration is to be made possible by restoring the proceedings before the Arbitrator and leaving open all the contentions to be urged therein. 9. While arriving at such conclusion, it is also necessary for this Court to clarify that in the changed circumstances where a consideration is to be made by the Arbitrator on all these aspects of the matter and the issue essentially at this point is also to consider whether the resitement should be granted, the need to continue the interim order, which had been granted in the instant petition would not arise inasmuch as the site in question at Srirangapatna, in any event is to be repossessed by the respondents to be used in an appropriate manner as they deem fit. As indicted above, ultimately even if the petitioner succeeds before the Arbitrator, the only question would be with regard to the continuance of the business at Kunthoor Village, Kollegal Taluk, Chamarajnagar District subject to the Arbitrator accepting the contentions of the petitioner in the background of the facts arising in the instant case. Therefore, it is made clear that notwithstanding the restoration of the proceedings before the Arbitrator for considering the dispute between the parties insofar as the plot at Srirangapatna, the respondents would be entitled to repossess and only the issue as indicated above for a final conclusion would be dealt with by the Arbitrator in the said proceedings. 10. Therefore, with the above said clarifications, the respondents are directed to bring this order to the notice of the sole Arbitrator if he is still available at this point in time. If the said sole Arbitrator is not available at this point in time, the respondents shall take steps to nominate an officer of the same grade as provided in the agreement to be the Arbitrator and such Arbitrator on restoration of the proceedings, shall issue notice to the petitioner as well as the respondents and thereafter commence the proceedings in accordance with law. Such restoration of the proceedings shall in any event be done within a period of six weeks from the date on which the copy of this order is furnished. The Arbitrator shall thereupon enter upon reference and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. All contentions in that regard are left open to be urged before the Arbitrator. Petition is accordingly disposed of. The Arbitrator shall thereupon enter upon reference and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. All contentions in that regard are left open to be urged before the Arbitrator. Petition is accordingly disposed of. In view of the disposal of the petition, I.A. No. 1 of 2016 also stands disposed of.