HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.22287 OF 2014 DATE: 07-08-2014 Between:
M/s. Miryalaguda Gas Agencies, 4-127/1, Opp:Nagarjuna Talkies, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, rep.by its Partner, G.Rama Rao, s/o.Venkaiah, Aged about 49 years, Occu: Business, r/o.Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District and another … Petitioners And Indian Oil Corporation Limited, rep.by its Executive Director, A.P.State Office, 3-6-436 to 438, III Floor, Naspur House, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad and another …. Respondents This Court made the following :
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.22287 OF 2014 ORDER:
Earlier the first petitioner was granted dealership in LPG at Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. Second petitioner is one of the partners of the partnership firm and he was involved in criminal case, which ultimately resulted in conviction. On the ground that second petitioner was convicted in S.C.No.19 of 2007 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act, Nalgonda, the dealership licence was cancelled. Aggrieved by the order of conviction, the second petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.920 of 2009 and the said Appeal was allowed by its judgment dated 02.01.2014 and the second petitioner was acquitted. After the acquittal, the second petitioner presented a representation dated 13.07.2014 to the respondent- corporation requesting to restore the dealership licence since the impediment for cancellation of the dealership was his conviction, which is now removed.
2. On instructions, the learned standing counsel submits that the dealership was granted in the name of partnership firm, whereas the representation dated 13.07.2014 is submitted in the individual capacity and, therefore, it was not processed.
3. This writ petition is instituted by the partnership firm as well as the second petitioner in his individual capacity. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that second petitioner is a leading partner and is authorized to represent the firm and the representation submitted on 13.07.2014 ought to be treated as representation on behalf of the partnership firm.
4. As record would disclose the earlier cancellation of dealership was on account of the conviction of the second petitioner in Criminal case. After the acquittal by the appellate Court, petitioner has brought to the notice of the respondent Corporation that he is acquitted now and since the licence was earlier cancelled on the ground of his conviction, consequent to his acquittal, the licence should be restored.
This matter requires consideration by the respondent-Corporation and ultimately even if the licence is restored, it would be restored in the name of the partnership firm, on which name the licence stands. If the individual partners have any objection on such renewal or continuation of second petitioner as partner, they can come forward and represent to the respondent corporation. Similarly the respondent corporation can also ascertain the willingness of those partners in continuation in the partnership firm. Merely because application is submitted in the individual capacity, it cannot be the ground for not processing the representation for restoration of the licence, if the claim is otherwise genuine.
5. Having regard to the facts of this case, the respondent- corporation is directed to consider the application of the second petitioner dated 13.07.2014. It is for the respondent corporation to obtain declaration from the petitioner that said application is on behalf of the first petitioner firm and after receiving such declaration, he shall consider the application for restoration of the dealership, according to the procedure envisaged by the respondent-corporation, within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 07.08.2014 Kkm HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO kkm WRIT PETITION NO.22287 OF 2014 DATE: 07-08-2014