Legal heirs have the right to seek reconstitution of a dealership with the consent of all legal heirs, and the Corporation has the authority to take appropriate steps if disputes among legal heirs are not resolved within a specified period.

JUDGMENT :

[Sandeep Mehta, J.]

Heard Mr. P. Bora, learned senior counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. G. Rahul, learned counsel, representing the respondent Nos.1 & 2 (writ petitioners) and Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, representing the respondent Nos.3 to 6.

2. The appellants herein have approached this Court by way of this intra-Court writ appeal seeking to assail legality and validity of the judgment and final order dated 01.02.2021 rendered by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.3549/2020, whereby the decision of the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Corporation”) in stopping the supply of fuel to the Retail Outlet in question was reversed and the Corporation was directed to take on record the proposal submitted by the writ petitioners (respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein) for reconstitution of the dealership strictly in accordance with the Rules by giving opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners and other stakeholders. A further rider was imposed by the learned Single Judge that the consideration would have to be limited only towards the requirements raised in the letter dated 10.07.2020 and the Corporation would not be at liberty to embark upon deciding the legality of the partnership which as per the learned Single Judge could only be decided by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the writ appeal are noted herein below:-

The Retail Outlet in question for dealing in petroleum productions/fuels was allotted to Shri M.P. Jalan by the respondent Corporation way back in the year 1967. Shri M.P. Jalan passed away on 13.04.1989. It is claimed that during the lifetime of Shri M.P. Jalan, a partnership firm came to be registered under the name and style of M/s M.P. Jalan with Shri Lakshmi Narayan Jalan and Shri Rajesh Jalan (respondent No.2 herein) being its partners. However, it is further an admitted position that the prayer for reconstitution of the dealership was never sought to be approved in terms of the Policy Guidelines.

4. Shri Lakshmi Narayan Jalan (father of the appellant Nos.1 & 2) seems to have forwarded a letter to the Senior Divisional Manager, IOCL on 08.06.1999 praying for introduction of his son and grandson of Shri M.P. Jalan, namely, Shri Rajesh Jalan (respondent No.2 herein), as a partner of the firm M/s M.P. Jalan, Tinsukia. However, the fact remains that the Retail Outlet was never reconstituted in the name of the partnership firm and continued to function as a proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s M.P. Jalan. From 22.08.2020, the respondent Corporation stopped supply of fuel and other petroleum products to the Retail Outlet, whereupon the captioned WP(C) No.3549/2020 came to be filed by the respondent Nos.1 & 2, wherein the appellants herein were not impleaded as party respondents. As indicated, the learned Single Judge proceeded to dispose of the aforesaid writ petition in the manner noted above.

5. The appellants herein being the remaining legal heirs of Shri M.P. Jalan sought permission to file an appeal against the impugned judgment & order dated 01.02.2021 and after being so permitted, they have preferred the instant intra-Court writ appeal for challenging the judgment dated 01.02.2021.

6. Mr. P. Bora, learned senior counsel representing the appellants, vehemently and fervently urged that there is no dispute that the proprietorship firm M/s M.P. Jalan was never reconstituted in the records of the respondent Corporation by seeking the appropriate approval. He contended that irrespective of the fact that a fresh partnership firm in the name and style of M/s M.P. Jalan was registered with the Registrar of Firms, the fact remains that Shri Lakshmi Narayan Jalan, the father of the appellant Nos.1 & 2 and husband of the appellant No.3 herein was one of the partners in the said firm. Thus, the appellants herein have an equal stake in the business of the Retail Outlet. He referred t