JUDGMENT : 1. Communication of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CBI, ACR, Chandigarh dated 10.03.2005 addressed to respondent No. 7 calling upon the later to initiate action for cancellation of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) Retail Outlet allotted to the petitioner by conducting fresh enquiry, is subject matter of challenge in this petition. Apart from seeking quashment of the aforesaid communication, the petitioner also seeks a direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to direct the holding of enquiry against respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for issuing the impugned communication. 2. The background facts relevant for the disposal of this petition deserve to be noticed in the first instance. On the basis of source information, the CBI registered F.I.R No. RC0042003/A006-JMU dated 30.08.2003 for commission of offences under Sections 120-B read with Section 420, 465, 468 and 471 RPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006. The matter was investigated by the CBI and a final report in terms of Section 173 Cr.PC was laid in the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu. In the report, CBI solicited orders for closure of the case. The request of the CBI for closure of the case was accepted by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu vide its order dated 25.02.2005. The case was, accordingly, closed. The Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu while directing the closure of the case also directed the authorities of Indian Oil Corporation to initiate an appropriate action in the light of recommendations made by the investigating officer. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, CBI, ACR, Chandigarh, accordingly, communicated to respondent No. 7 for taking appropriate action against the petitioner for cancellation of his Retail Outlet license and also against one Sh. P.K Yadav, the then Senior Divisional Manager, Jammu. This was done in terms of the impugned communication. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. This Court while entertaining this petition on 08.03.2007, restrained the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 from acting upon the impugned communication. 4. The respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have filed their reply affidavit. The stand taken by the respondent Nos. This was done in terms of the impugned communication. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. This Court while entertaining this petition on 08.03.2007, restrained the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 from acting upon the impugned communication. 4. The respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have filed their reply affidavit. The stand taken by the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 is that pursuant to the F.I.R registered in the matter, investigation was conducted and for want of sufficient evidence, the closure report was submitted before the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu on 25.02.2005. Simultaneously, a note was also sent by the CBI to respondent No. 7 for initiating appropriate action for cancellation of the Retail Outlet of the petitioner after conducting a fresh enquiry into the matter. Request was also made to respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to take appropriate action against Sh. P.K Yadav, the then Senior Divisional Manager. It is also stated that the closure report submitted by the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 was accepted by the Court and recommendations made for initiating appropriate action against the delinquent officers of the Indian Oil Corporation was also endorsed by the Court. It is also submitted that the petitioner accepted the order of closure and did not challenge it further. 5. The sum and substance of the reply submitted by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 is that their communication to respondent Nos. 6 and 7 was in the shape of recommendations and the action proposed was required to be taken by the Indian Oil Corporation after conducting a fresh enquiry into the allotment of the Retail Outlet of Indian Oil Corporation in favour of the petitioner. An objection was also taken with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition in the absence of Indian Oil Corporation being arrayed as party respondents. It appears that on going through the reply affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 5, the petitioner became wiser and arrayed the official of Indian Oil Corporation as respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Although respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have not filed any separate reply in this petition, but their objections filed in opposition to the application filed by the petitioner for impleadment vividly spell out their stand. The stand of respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Although respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have not filed any separate reply in this petition, but their objections filed in opposition to the application filed by the petitioner for impleadment vividly spell out their stand. The stand of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as is discernible from their objections is that the instant petition is filed by the petitioner to unnecessarily protract and delay the finalization of arbitration proceedings pending before the learned Arbitrator appointed in terms of the Dealership Agreement. It is claimed that earlier also, the petitioner had moved this Court by way of OWP No. 560/2010 alleging refusal by the Indian Oil Corporation to provide him some information under RTI Act. In that case, the proceedings before the learned Arbitrator remained stayed from 2010 till the writ petition was dismissed on 29.01.2018. It is clearly indicated by the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in their objections that the dealership of Retail Outlet of the petitioner has been terminated in terms of Clauses 56 and 56(1) of the Dealership Agreement on taking conspectus view of entire matter on the basis of available record. It is, thus, urged that termination is subject matter of adjudication before the learned Arbitrator. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the grievance of the petitioner as against the impugned communication is without any substance. 7. On the basis of source information, an F.I.R was registered against the petitioner and three others on 30.08.2003. The matter was investigated by the CBI but in the absence of evidence connecting the petitioner and other accused with the commission of offences under Sections 120-B read with Section 420, 465, 468 and 471 RPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, the closure report was submitted to the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu. The Investigating Officer, in the concluding portion of the closure report, also mentioned that during investigation, he had collected material/evidence indicating lapses on the part of Sh. P.K Yadav, the then Senior Divisional Manager, IOC, Sh. Pamposh Wattal, the then Assistant Manager (Sales), IOCL, Jammu and Sh. Vinod Malhotra, the then Chief Town Planner, JDA, Jammu while discharging their official functions for which their concerned departments had been informed to take appropriate action in the matter. P.K Yadav, the then Senior Divisional Manager, IOC, Sh. Pamposh Wattal, the then Assistant Manager (Sales), IOCL, Jammu and Sh. Vinod Malhotra, the then Chief Town Planner, JDA, Jammu while discharging their official functions for which their concerned departments had been informed to take appropriate action in the matter. The closure report, as noted hereinabove, was accepted by the Court but the Court also concurred with the observations of the Investigating Officer with regard to the action proposed against the officials of the Indian Oil Corporation etc. Accordingly, while accepting the closure report vide its order dated 25.02.2005, the Court also directed the authorities concerned to initiate appropriate action in the light of the recommendations made by the Investigating Officer. This judgment of the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu has attained finality. 8. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the self contained note, which is claimed to have been submitted by the CBI to respondent Nos. 6 and 7 was only in the shape of providing inputs to the Corporation with regard to the alleged irregularities committed by its officials in the matter of grant of Retail Outlet in favour of the petitioner. The communication impugned coupled with the directions of the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Court even if the same is not taken to be binding upon respondent Nos. 6 and 7 is, atleast, a prima-facie material made available to respondent No. 7 to initiate appropriate action, of course in accordance with law. As is claimed by respondent Nos. 6 and 7, they invoked Clauses 56 and 56(1) of the Dealership Agreement and terminated the Dealership Agreement. Whether the termination of the dealership of the petitioner is as per the terms and conditions of the Dealership Agreement or in violation thereof is a subject matter now pending adjudication before the Arbitrator. It is, thus, not understandable, how the impugned communication can affect the merits of the controversy which is subject matter of adjudication in the arbitration proceedings pending before the Arbitrator appointed in terms of the Dealership Agreement. It is, thus, not understandable, how the impugned communication can affect the merits of the controversy which is subject matter of adjudication in the arbitration proceedings pending before the Arbitrator appointed in terms of the Dealership Agreement. The apprehension of the petitioner that the Arbitrator may not decide the controversy on merits and instead accept the order of termination passed by the Indian Oil Corporation as valid having been passed in compliance to the impugned communication issued by the CBI and the directions issued by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu, is totally misplaced and unwarranted. The impugned communication, as observed hereinabove, is not a mandatory direction from the CBI to the Indian Oil Corporation to necessarily terminate the dealership of the petitioner. The communication clearly emphasizes that the proposed action be taken only after holding a fresh enquiry. It is true that the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu while accepting the closure report has directed the Indian Oil Corporation to take appropriate action as proposed by the CBI but it also clearly emphasizes that the proposed action would be one as is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that there is a positive direction from the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu to necessarily terminate the dealership contract of the petitioner. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is made clear that the learned Arbitrator, who is conducting the arbitration proceedings between the petitioner and Indian Oil Corporation with regard to the termination of the dealership contract of the petitioner, shall proceed to determine the issues raised before him on the basis of evidence and the material available on record and without being influenced in any manner either by the self contained note of the CBI forwarded to Indian Oil Corporation along with impugned communication or by the observation of the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu, with regard to taking of the proposed action against the accused in F.I.R No. RC0042003/A006-JMU dated 30.08.2003 as warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.