1. - The petitioner firm M/s. National Automobiles, Barmer, whose partner Prakash Chandra Jain, has laid this writ petition, assailing the order dated 28.05.2013 (Annex. 14) passed by the Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, whereby dealership agreement dated 25.09.1967 with the firm has been rescinded by invoking Clause 13 of the dealership agreement. In the order dated 28.05.2013, the competent authority of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (for short, 'IOCL') has concluded that the firm has failed to submit a reconstitution proposal meeting the policy guidelines of the Corporation inspite of giving sufficient opportunities and consequently concluding that the firm is running as Benami dealership. The IOCL has also categorized the reconstitution of the firm as unauthorized in want of approval of the Corporation. According to the version of the petitioner, M/s. National Automobiles was constituted as a HUF proprietorship firm and Shri Bhanwarlal Jain was proprietor as 'Karta'. In the year 1975, Shri Bhanwarlal expired and as such his three sons doing business of dealer for petrol, diesel as well as Kerosene, as agent of IOCL, constituted a partnership firm with all the three as partners. The impugned action of the IOCL was questioned in the petition on various counts including violation of principles of natural justice.

2. On behalf of IOCL, reply is submitted by stoutly defending their action. The IOCL has taken a specific stand in the reply that despite furnishing umpteen opportunities the petitioner firm has failed to accomplish reconstitution of dealership agreement and the said failure is directly attributable to the legal heirs of the then dealer Shri Bhanwarlal Jain. It is also emphasised in the return that there was some internal dispute amongst the legal heirs of Late Shri Bhanwarlal and one of his daughters Smt. Shanti Devi submitted various representations/complaints alleging therein that she has not consented for reconstitution of dealership and her signatures on the alleged consent letter are spurious. This sort of awkward situation was an impediment in reconstitution of dealership and ultimately resulted in termination of dealership. The IOCL has also taken the stand in the reply that the complaints of Smt. Shanti Devi created a situation wherein IOCL was in dilemma and consequently it was not possible for it to restore supply of Kerosene to the firm and precisely this the main cause for cropping up of this litigation.

3. On behalf of Smt. Shanti Devi, an application is submitted for her impleadment as party respondent in the writ petition. In the application, the applicant has stated that originally the firm was proprietorship firm and her father Late Shri Bhanwarlal was its sole proprietor. It is also averred in the application that her three brothers, who are alleged partners of the firm, have manipulated her consent letter whereas in fact she never consented for reconstitution of dealership for Kerosene. A reference is also made in the application that at the behest of applicant Smt. Shanti Devi a family dispute is pending before Addl. District Judge, Barmer, wherein she has claimed partition of the property of Late Shri Bhanwarlal. Mr. Bhansali, learned counsel for the applicant, has very candidly submitted that although in the suit for partition many properties owned by Late Shri Bhanwarlal are involved but the Kerosene dealership of the firm, which is the bone of contention in this writ petition is not part of the claim in the property dispute. However, Mr. Bhansali submits that she being legal heir of Late Shri Bhanwarlal is entitled for her part of share in the Kerosene dealership and the profit earned by the firm in this behalf. Mr. Bhansali has further submitted that applicant Smt. Shanti Devi is prepared to tender her affidavit in the form of No Objection before the IOCL for reconstitution of dealership, which was terminated by the impugned order subject to just