The court's decision emphasized the importance of complying with the terms of the agreement and the reconstitution guidelines, highlighting the significance of producing necessary documents for partnership reconstitution.

ORDER :

N. Nagaresh, J.

1. The petitioner, a distributor of LPG cylinders of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, is before this Court seeking to quash Ext. P9 order and to command respondents 2 and 3 to allow the petitioner to continue his business of LPG distributorship as per Ext. P3 appointment order in his own name as licensee.

2. The petitioner is a Partnership Firm represented by Authorised Allottee. The Authorised Allottee is a person with 75% disability. On account of his disability, the 1 respondent-Government of India as per Ext. P1 decided to allot LPG distributorship at Kattappana on compassionate ground to him. Consequently, the 2 respondent-Indian Oil Corporation awarded distributorship to the Authorised Allottee of petitioner. Necessary licences were obtained from various authorities and the Authorised Allottee commenced the business.

3. The petitioner states that as the Authorised Allottee was physically handicapped, he was in need of a person to help him to run the business and therefore in the year 2015, a partnership was registered as Divine Gas Enterprises wherein the additional 4 respondent was included as a partner. Ext. P5 partnership deed provided that the additional 4 respondent shall be the Managing Partner of the Firm and he shall carry on day-to-day affairs of the Firm in the best interest of the partners.

4. The 4 respondent was not satisfied with the income derived from the distributorship and he went to Dubai for better prospects. He executed a Power of Attorney in favour of one Binoy Sebastian. The relationship between the Authorised Allottee, who is the original allottee of Distributorship , and the additional 4 respondent got strained and the Authorised Allottee was running the business himself. The additional 4 respondent, representing as Managing Director of the Firm, filed O.S. No. 287/2019 in the Munsiff's Court, Kattappana for permanent prohibitory injunction. An interim injunction was granted in favour of the additional 4 respondent. But, ultimately, the Munsiff's Court dismissed the application for interim injunction.

5. The petitioner states that respondents 2 and 3 suspended distributorship in favour of the petitioner-Firm as per Ext. P8. Ext. P8 was passed without any valid reason and without collecting explanation from the petitioner. The Authorised Allottee submitted application to respondents 2 and 3 to allow him to carry on with the business as a proprietorship establishment. However, the said application was rejected as per Ext. P9 on the ground that such conversion can be made only with the consent of the other partner.

6. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P.(C) No. 9306/2020. This Court directed respondents 2 and 3 to consider Ext. P10 representation filed by the Authorised Allottee. However, the 1 respondent, without hearing the Authorised Allottee and without taking into account all relevant facts, passed Ext. P12 order refusing to consider the request for reconstitution of the partnership. The petitioner therefore seeks to quash Ext. P9 order of suspension and for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 not to terminate the distributorship of the petitioner given to the Authorised Allottee as per Exts. P1, P2 and P3.

7. Respondents 2 and 3 resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. Respondents 2 and 3 stated that though the distributorship was given to the Authorised Allottee of the petitioner as a sole proprietorship in the year 1993, the Authorised Allottee sought to reconstitute the distributorship from proprietorship to partnership by inducting additional 4 respondent. Accordingly, a fresh distributorship agreement Ext. R2(a) was entered into between the 2 respondent and the petitioner-Firm. While so, it was found that the Authorised Allottee has shifted his residence to Mallur and the additional 4 respondent moved to Dubai. As per Clause 23 of Ext. R2(a) agreement, the partners of the distributorship should reside in the place of the distributorship. Respondents 2 and 3 fo