HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.39679 of 2014 DATE: 26.12.2014 Between:
Sri Balaji Filling Station, rep.by its Managing Partner/ Authorized representative Sri K.Chandra Mohan Reddy, s/o. Mr. K.Veera Reddy, Aged about 58 years, Occu:Business, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Dealer, M.G.Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.
…. Petitioner AND M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, having Its registered office at 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai, rep.by its Executive Director and another.
.... Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.39679 of 2014 ORDER:
Petitioner is a partnership firm. Partnership firm was granted retail outlet dealership and such dealership was established in the name of Sri Balaji Filling Station at Vijayawada, Krishna District. One of the partners died. However, the date of death of the deceased partner was not brought on record. On 21.08.2014, notice was issued calling partnership firm to explain on the issues mentioned in the said notice and why action should not be taken in line with the Dealership Agreement dated 28.08.2004. On 02.08.2014, petitioner firm submitted a representation. While so, on 26.08.2014, the District Collector, Krishna, cancelled the Form-B licence alleging that retail outlet was running by an unauthorized person and there was misuse of the licence granted. Thereafter, by letter dated 26.08.2014, the respondent-corporation suspended the sales and supplies to the petitioner outlet and have also taken over the outlet and now operating the outlet on Company Owned and Company Operated (COCO) basis. By the same letter, petitioner was also granted four months time for submitting all the requisite documents for reconstitution of the firm.
2. The case of the petitioner necessitating institution of this writ petition is, one of the documents required to update the information regarding the petitioner partnership firm is that reconstituted partnership deed should be submitted. Partnership is not reconstituted since family members of deceased partner have not obtained so far the succession certificate. It is contended that family members of the deceased partner invoked jurisdiction of Civil Court by filing O.S.No.211 of 2014 to obtain succession certificate and the same is yet to be decided. Therefore, the information required could not be furnished, which is not deliberate or wilful. On the ground that the information required is not furnished, the respondent corporation is taking steps to terminate the dealership agreement.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner Sri Vidya Sagar contends that for reconstitution of the partnership firm, the succession certificate is mandatory and family members of late Y.R.J.Mohan Rao have already taken steps and, therefore, the petitioner requires six more months to reconstitute the partnership firm and to submit the same accordingly. However, on the ground that four months time granted on 26.08.2014 is expiring, the respondent corporation is taking steps to terminate the dealership agreement. In such an event, grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioner firm.
4. Learned standing counsel Sri B.Mayur Reddy for respondents, on instructions, submits that there are two independent issues under consideration by the respondent corporation. One issue is relating to reconstitution of the partnership firm; updating the information regarding the petitioner partnership firm; and second issue is with reference to illegalities committed by the dealer in the manner of operation of dealer outlet and reasons for cancellation of Form-B licence by the District Collector. These are two independent issues and could not be clubbed together. Standing counsel further submits that sufficient time was granted to the petitioner to reconstitute the partnership firm, but the petitioner deliberately delaying to reconstitute the partnership firm. He submits that request for grant of six more months is not bona fide.
5. Having regard to the fact that family members of the deceased partner have already instituted O.S.No.211 of 2014 and as informed by the learned senior counsel that this matter is likely to be settled shortly, the request of the petitioner for grant of some more time ought to have been considered favourably. Having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, the respondent corporation is directed to relax the requirement of uploading the particulars as required by the respondent corporation by further three months. The petitioner is directed to take immediate steps to reconstitute the partnership firm and to submit all the requisite documents to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner is required to complete all the formalities within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The grant of time to reconstitute the partnership firm does not come in the way of respondent corporation taking any action against the petitioner firm with reference to any other issue pending for consideration other than the updating of KYC. It is also made clear that till all the requisite formalities are completed by petitioner firm, the respondent corporation is entitled to operate the outlet on Company Owned and Company Operated (COCO) basis.
6. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 26.12.2014 Kkm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.39679 of 2014 DATE: 26.12.2014 kkm