Heard Mr. Adeshra, learned advocate for the applicant, Ms. Acharya, learned advocate for the opponent No.1 and Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the opponent No.2.
2. This application is taken out with a request to permit the applicant to join the proceedings related to Special Civil Application No.17576 of 2011. The application is taken out on the ground that the applicant is necessary party in the said writ petition.
3. The petition is taken out by a concern/establishment which carries on business in name and style of Joshi Brothers. In the petition, below mentioned relief is prayed for:-
"9(B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated 21.11.2011 passed by respondent corporation and further be pleased to allow the petitioner to carry on the business of selling petrol(MS)/Diesel (HSD)/LDO in furtherance of the agreement executed between the petitioner and respondent herein;"
4. Mr.
Adeshra, learned advocate for the applicant, has made submissions in support of the application. He has contended that if the application is allowed, no prejudice will be caused to the opponents. He has also submitted that the applicant is "affected party". He also claimed that the documents placed on record of the writ petition are forged and that there are inter-se disputes about the fact situation. According to the applicant, the person through whom the writ petition is filed, has retired from the partnership and now the applicant is the sole owner of said "Joshi Brothers", i.e. the petitioner. He also submitted that the said fact was informed to the opponent No.2 as well. In the submission of learned advocate for the applicant, all the above referred issues are involved in the matter and they are required to be considered. Therefore, the application is required to be allowed.
5. The contentions are opposed by learned counsel for the opponents.
6. The challenge involved and raised in the petition is against the decision of respondent No.2 terminating the agreement of dealership which was awarded to a partnership firm viz. "Joshi Brothers". It is an undisputed fact that though the applicant alleges and claims that he is necessary party in the petition because actually he is the sole proprietor of the firm namely "Joshi Brothers", the petitioner has, until now, on his own not cared to challenge the order terminating the dealership (though he claims to be the sole proprietor).
7. Having regard to the contentions raised by the applicant, the issues which are sought to be raised by the applicant are not such, which can be considered and decided in a Civil Application seeking impleadment in the proceedings of the writ petition. Actually, most of the disputes sought to be raised by applicant are such which may not be capable of being decided in writ proceedings as it would require trial. It, prima facie, appears that the issues which are sought to be raised by the applicant may not be covered within the scope of the writ petition and in any case, cannot be decided at this stage. Therefore, it is considered appropriate that the application may be heard and decided along with the writ petition, which is already admitted.
8. Hence, below mentioned order is passed.
8.1 To be heard with Special Civil Application No.17576 of 2011.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc Top