In writ appeal direction to run the business in partnership given.

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

Appellant/petitioner is a freedom fighter. He challenges the judgment passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing his writ petition. In that writ petition, the appellant had challenged the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 15-12-1999 whereby, the 2nd respondent had decided that the L. P. G. Distributorship should continue to run by the petitioner along with Smt. Krishnakumari as his partner and that it is only when they approach the Indian Oil Corporation as a partnership, the suspension of their distributorship would be revoked and the supplies would be resumed. There is a short factual background to this order.

2. Petitioner admittedly being a freedom fighter was awarded the L. P. G. Distributorship under "freedom fighters" quota and he commenced his business at Nagercoil during December, 1995 under the name and style of "M/s. Gopalakrishna Gas Service". He found it slightly difficult to run his business alone. Therefore, he took his grand-daughter Smt. B. Krishnakumari (3rd respondent herein) as a partner. This was done with the "consent" of the Indian Oil Corporation. The 1st respondent Corporation accepted the letter to that effect and informed the petitioner that the reorganization proposal was provisionally approved. He was requested to add three paragraphs to his draft partnership deed which, he complied with and wrote to that effect to the 1st respondent Corporation. He also executed a partnership deed on 3-6-1996 on which date, the partnership firm was to commence its working. This was also acknowledged by the 1st respondent by its letter dated 24-6-1996.

3. It seems that troubles started building in the relationship between the petitioner and his grand-daughter, Smt. Krishna-kumari, and, therefore, the hitherto congenial relationship between the petitioner and the grand-daughter soured. It seems that on 13-5-1999, Smt. Krishnakumari reported to the Senior Area Manager, Indane Area Office, Madurai of the 1st respondent that the petitioner along with his son closed down the godown and locked it. She also pointed out in this very letter hat she had resigned from her job as per the request of her grand-father, the petitioner, and spent lot of money in purchasing the land for the godown. She also reiterated that some others were interfering in the business. She ultimately requested that she should be allowed to open the godown and should be allowed to run the business. It is apparent that the petitioner determined the partnership by his letter dated 3-5-1999 and ultimately the Area Manager suspended the distributorship licence on 14-5-1999. The petitioner made a request to the Area Manager to revoke the suspension and since the said representation was not disposed of filed a writ petition (W. P. No. 14534 of 1999) seeking a Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to restore the distributorship. By an order dated 1-9-1999, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner on merits and also taking into consideration the purpose for which the dealership was given. The learned single Judge also mentioned that there was no rule or regulation to get the permission from the 1st respondent to remove the grand-daughter of the petitioner from the partnership firm.

4. Very strangely, the 3rd respondent filed an appeal against this order and the Division Bench by an order dated 26-11-1999 disposed of the writ appeal while confirming the order passed by the learned single Judge. The Division Bench further held that the authority should hear not only the petitioner but the 3rd respondent also before passing a final order. Ultimately, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order dated 16-12-1999 directing that the distributorship business should be run only by the partnership consisting of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. Time was also granted till 31-3-2000 to the parties to resolve their personal disputes. This order was challen