JUDGMENT B.Krishna Mohan, J. - This Writ Appeal arises against the order of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition No.41129 of 2018, dated 01.11.2019 filed by the appellant/petitioner against the respondents/respondents. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. It is the case of the appellant/petitioner that he has been running the Petroleum Outlet since 1968 and got renewed the license till 2030. The 2nd respondent terminated the dealership of the petitioner's Retail Outlet, vide Ref:VJA DO/LVSR/Termination, dated 09.10.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant/petitioner filed Writ Petition No.41129 of 2018. The learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No.41129 of 2018, observed that as there are disputed questions of fact, as such alternative remedy may be availed, hence precluded the petitioner from invoking the jurisdiction of the Writ Court and dismissed the Writ Petition. Assailing the same, this Writ Appeal is preferred. 4. The learned counsel for the Appellant/petitioner contended that the learned Single Judge erred in observing that this Court cannot go into the disputed questions of fact, as there is an alternative remedy. In fact the petitioner never prayed the Writ Court to go into the disputed questions of fact and gave a finding and on the contrary, he has only pointed out the illegalities and irregularities committed by the respondents in passing the impugned order. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the person (2nd respondent), who participated in the enquiry (representing the Oil Company as one of the parties) held on 03.10.2019 and who opposed the case of the petitioner cannot be a judge in his own case, whereas the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order as against the Executive Director, who heard the case on 03.10.2019 and on that ground alone, the Writ Petition ought to have been allowed. The learned Single Judge ought to have further seen that the Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.27451 of 2018, vide order, dated 07.09.2018, directed the 3rd respondent therein (Executive Director) to consider the explanation of the petitioner and take action, whereas the impugned order of termination discloses that he did not take any action and as such, the order impugned is not in compliance with the above said directions of this Court. The learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the authority, who heard the case must apply his/her mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders by his own not through respondent No.2. 5. In reply to the said contentions of the appellant/petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the order of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ petition is justified and no inference is called for, as the learned Single Judge gone into the aspects of alternative remedy and as well as the maintainability of the Writ Petition on merits of the case. He also points out that the effective alternative remedies are present and that the appellant/petitioner is therefore not entitled to file a Writ Petition and he further submits that the contract was validly terminated and as such, the Writ petition is not an appropriate remedy. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we have seen the prayer sought for by the petitioner in Writ petition No.41129 of 2018, which is as follows: "To issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring order of the 2nd respondent, dated 09.10.2018 made in Ref: VJA DO/LVSR/Termination, terminating the dealership of the petitioner in respect of the petitioner Retail Outlet as arbitrary, illegal, unjust colourable exercise of power without power or jurisdiction non-application of mind without considering the explanations submitted by the petitioner in proper perspective contrary to the Marketing Disciplinary guidelines, contrary to the directions of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.27451 of 2018 violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the said termination order, dated 09.10.2018 and further direct the respondents to restore supplies and sales to the petitioner R.O." 7. The learned single Judge, after hearing both sides and on consideration of merits, gave a finding that "therefore, a Writ, in the opinion of this Court, is not a proper remedy. Although, the respondents can be called as a State or a State instrumentality, the contract in question is purely a commercial contract. Therefore, the maintainability of the Writ petition itself is an issue. The existence of an alternative remedy also precludes the petitioner from invoking the jurisdiction of this Court." 8. Although, the respondents can be called as a State or a State instrumentality, the contract in question is purely a commercial contract. Therefore, the maintainability of the Writ petition itself is an issue. The existence of an alternative remedy also precludes the petitioner from invoking the jurisdiction of this Court." 8. After going into the merits on factual side, the learned Single Judge also observed that "the Writ Petition does not have any merits and accordingly the same is dismissed". 9. On perusal of the record, it reveals that the order impugned has been passed by Respondent No.2, who has participated in the enquiry, representing the Oil Company, although in the previous round of litigation, direction was issued to decide the representation by the Executive Director. The plea taken by the respondent, that it is required to be heard by a Committee, in which respondent No.2 was a Member, is not tenable, in terms of the orders passed by this Court. In such a situation, the observation made by respondent No.2, that an efficacious and alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, is not primarily sustainable. It is to be further observed that the matter though contractual, but under a contract in which the petitioner is running a petrol pump, have a right to continue the same, until such right is extinguished by following the procedure as prescribed. In the facts of the case, the said finding is not appealing. 10. In view of the foregoing, the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the Writ Petition for want of having an efficacious alternative remedy and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available for disputed questions of fact, is hereby set-aside. 11. In view of the foregoing considerations, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby set-aside. On filing a detailed reply by the respondent to the contentions as advanced, the learned Single Judge shall hear and decide the Writ Petition as per Law. While disposing appeal, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case, however learned Single Judge may decide it as per own wisdom. The finding recorded herein above is only to consider the dismissal of the Writ Petition for want of having an efficacious alternative remedy, and not to the merits. 12. While disposing appeal, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case, however learned Single Judge may decide it as per own wisdom. The finding recorded herein above is only to consider the dismissal of the Writ Petition for want of having an efficacious alternative remedy, and not to the merits. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed and disposed of restoring W.P.No.41129 of 2018 to its file. On restoration, Writ Petition be placed for hearing before appropriate Single Judge as per roster. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Appeal. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in the Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.