ORDER :

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

“(i) For issuing any appropriate writ, order or directions for directing respondent No. 1 to continue making supply of patrol and petroleum products in petitioner’s name to the retail out let set up in 2005 by the petitioner on NH 22 at Dharampur on Shimla-Kalka road, which was allotted to petitioner vide annexure P-1 dated 16.1.2002.

(ii) For directing the respondent No. 1 to continue supplying petrol and petroleum products to the retail outlet of the petitioner as hereto before notwithstanding any dispute between petitioner and respondent No. 2 which is liable to be settled and can be settled or adjudicated upon in separate proceedings.

(iii) For issuing directing to the respondents to treat the partnership deed executed between petitioner and respondent No. 2 as non existent and to treat the petitioner as sole proprietor of the petrol retail outlet on NH-22 at Dharampur on Shimla-Kalka road.”

2. The case of the petitioner is that the he had raised a Petrol Pump on his owned and possessed land pursuant to his selection by respondent No. 1 as a dealer at Dharampur. The outlet is situated at National Highway -22 in District Solan. The same was made functional by the petitioner in the name and style of M/S Jai Hind Filling Station, Dharampur, with the petitioner being its sole proprietor. Respondent is the wife of a close family friend of the petitioner. In the year 2012, she expressed interest to invest in the Petrol Pump. It was mutually decided between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 to form a partnership deed for the purpose of running the Petrol Pump, and for this purpose, market value of the land exclusively owned and possessed by the petitioner was assessed at Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rs. Five Crores). In lieu of 40% share to be allotted to respondent No. 2 in the partnership firm, said respondent was to pay Rs.2,45,00,000/- (Two Crores and Forty Five Lac) to the petitioner by 31.03.2014. The proposal to form this partnership firm was submitted to respondent No. 1, which accepted said proposal. Thereafter, the partnership deed as per format of respondent No. 1 was formed and registered on 25.4.2013. As per the petitioner, despite registration of the partnership deed and its acceptance by respondent No.1, the Petrol Pump continued to be operated by him as a sole proprietor and this was done with the knowledge of respondent No. 1, who did not object to the same. The partnership deed was to become workable only on the fulfillment of obligations on the part of respondent No. 2. According to the petitioner, this deed was never acted upon by the petitioner or respondent No. 1 or 2 for want of fulfillment of obligations by respondent No. 2. The partnership deed remained in abeyance and was treated as such even by respondent No. 1. An amount of Rs.2,45,00,000/-, which was to be paid by respondent No. 2, was not paid by her to the petitioner. She issued three cheques for an amount of Rs.75.00 Lac each, which were dishonoured on presentation. Respondent No. 2 did not invest in the running and operation of Petrol Pump. In the years 2006-07, unsecured loan of Rs.8.60 Lac given by respondent No. 2 on interest in favour of the petitioner was also not merged against her liability towards partnership firm. The sole proprietorship continued to repay the loan to respondent No. 2 with interest. The partnership firm which was at will of the partners, was eventually dissolved and terminated by the petitioner by issuance of notice to this effect to respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P-10, dated 112.4.2014 and vide Annexure P-11, dated 17.7.2014. The bank accounts of the firm work in the name of the petitioner in his capacity as sole proprietor. The return of the proceeds of the Petrol Pump were being reflected in the income tax returns of the petitioner only. The petitioner brought the fact of dissolution and termination of partnership deed to the