Heard counsel for the parties on the two interlocutory applications, one filed by the petitioners and another filed by the respondent no. 2.

I.A. No. 1847 of 2010 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking permission to introduce certain amendments in the original writ application. A rejoinder to the interlocutory application has been filed by the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ application has been filed for the following relief(s):

i. For issuance of a direction upon the respondents, in particular the respondent no. 2, to sign the Form-III DTO Licence Form and certify the appointment of the petitioner no. 1 as the dealer of the respondent no. 2 for running the retail outlet at the place where it was established.

ii. For restraining the respondents from unlawfully preventing the petitioner no. 1 from running the business of retail outlet of the respondent no. 2.

iii. For quashing the inspection report dated 3.1.2008 issued under the signature of the respondent no. 3 whereby, the petitioner have been called upon to show-cause as to why action for terminating the retail outlet dealer of the respondent no. 2, should not be passed.

3. Learned counsel explains that this court while admitting the writ application, had, vide its order dated 19.3.2009, passed an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the writ application. Yet, the respondent no. 3 by his order dated 17.3.2010, has intimated to the petitioner that the dealership agreement which the petitioner had entered into with the respondents, has been terminated with immediate effect and the petitioner has also been asked to depute his representative to be present at the retail outlet site for the purpose of enabling the respondents to take away the articles from the site.

Learned counsel submits further that considering the aforesaid subsequent development which had transpired during the pendency of this writ application, the petitioner needs to amend his writ application to include a further prayer for quashing the order as contained in the letter dated 17.3.2010 issued by the respondent no. 3 and to include a corresponding statement of facts, to paragraph-29 of the writ application, as mentioned in paragraph-5(b) of the interlocutory application.

4. Disputing the prayer for amendment, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 submits that the additional prayer sought to be introduced by way of amendment of the original writ application, is totally misconceived and misleading for the following reasons:

i. The proposed additional prayer would change the nature of the original relief(s} claimed by the petitioner in the writ application which was confined only to the issue as to whether the respondents were liable to sign and execute the Form-II/DTO Licence Form in favour of the petitioner.

ii. The decision for termination of the dealership of the petitioner was taken in exercise of the rights reserved for the respondents under the dealership agreement which could be exercised in the event the dealer commits any act of misconduct.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents explains that in course of the inspection carried out at the retail outlet of the petitioner, certain grave irregularities amounting to malpractices, were detected and considering the same as acts of misconduct, and acts amounting to violation of the dealership agreement, a show-cause notice, was issued to the petitioner to explain as to why his dealership should not be terminated and being not satisfied with the show-cause replies, the respondents, in exercise of their right, had proceeded to terminate the dealership. Such action on the part of the respondents, involving the disputed question of facts and undertaken in exercise of the rights reserved under the dealership agreement, cannot be adjudicated upon by this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel submits further that the petitioner has alternative reme