Parties must comply with the respondent's call for reconstitution of the firm, and failure to do so may result in lawful action by the respondent.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner challenges the proceedings of the respondent, dated 15.05.2014, stating that he apprehends that his dealership would be terminated, since the petitioner was not able to appear before the respondent Corporation for taking steps to reconstitute the firm.

3. At the time, when the writ petition was entertained, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that one of the partners namely Srimathi. Leelavathy, who is aged 83 years was unable to appear in person. Therefore, steps have been taken to reconstitute the firm and in the interregnum period, the respondent has passed the impugned order.

4. This appears to have been the representation of the petitioners to the authorities, which is taken note of, while passing the impugned order dated 15.05.2014. In the impugned proceedings, it is specifically stated that if they do not reconstitute the firm within the time permitted, the respondent Corporation deserves the right to terminate the dealership.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is not the intention of the respondent to terminate the dealership. But, it is the endeavour of the respondent to call upon the petitioner and the partners to reconstitute the firm. The petitioner and its partners were informed of the consequences which may follow if the firm is not reconstituted. Further, it is stated that in respect of more than 140 dealers in the area, except the petitioner and its partners, all others have appeared in response to the notice. Further, the learned counsel has produced a copy of the letter written and signed by Mr. T. Thirumalai and Mrs. T. Senbagavalli to the Chairman of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mumbai. In the said letter, it is noted that Mrs. Leelavathy is a troublesome partner with eccentric character. She has the habit of demanding ransom money every now and then from the other partners. Instead of removing the non-cooperative eccentric partner from the dealership, the Territory Manager is trying to throw mud on the bread and butter of the other two partners, which is not justified.

6. However, this Court is not inclined to go into those aspects, since the respondent Corporation has called upon the petitioner and its partners to appear before them and the petitioner and its partners have to respond to the same. It is not a letter of termination, but it is a letter of informing consequences that may to follow. Hence, the petitioner and its partners are directed to appear before the respondent Corporation on 22.09.2014 without fail and execute all documents as called for. In the event of petitioner's failure to take all the partners to appear before the respondent, the respondent is entitled to take action in accordance with law.

7. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected M.P. (md).Nos.1 & 2 of 2014 are closed. No costs.