The court affirmed that while reconstituting a partnership firm, individual parties' rights remain subject to pending civil suits and that interim orders do not decide those rights.

JUDGMENT :

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.

1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, whereby, learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by first respondent with certain directions regarding re-constitution of the firm, to which, dispensing pump and selling license was granted.

2. Briefly stated, the backdrop in which the writ petition came to be filed by first respondent herein, is that a partnership firm in the name of Aruna Enterprises was granted dispensing pump and selling license by second respondent M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) on 02.12.2022. The partnership comprised of Mathialagan and Arun, first respondent herein. Later on, Mathialagan died on 09.10.2023. It appears that BPCL invoked Clause 13(b) of the license and sent a communication on 21.10.2023 to surviving owner Arun to undertake certain exercise for re-constitution of the firm, so that the license could be allowed to continue.

3. It appears that there were internal family disputes in the family of Mathialagan. It is stated that Mathialagan had two wives. Be that as it may, for one reason or other, as there was no unanimity amongst the family members of the deceased, the firm could not be re-constituted despite several opportunities granted by the petroleum company to first respondent. When finally a letter dated 11.09.2024 was issued, giving first respondent last opportunity to re-constitute the firm, failing which, it was stated that the license would be cancelled, first respondent rushed to file writ petition before this Court with the following prayer:

“It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the Order Ref.No.TRT. Aruna Enterprises. Speaking Order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the 1^st respondent to allow the petitioner to continue to operate the existing petrol pump at Trichy - Chennai Main Road, Padalur, Perambalur District, Tamilnadu - 621 109 as the dealer until the 1^st respondent ascertains and assesses the readiness and suitability of the legal heirs of the erstwhile partner, Mr.(Late) S.Mathialagan, to join the existing business as active partners with the petitioner and execute a reconstituted/fresh partnership agreement in the prescribed format and to pass such further order.”

4. First respondent, impleaded legal heirs, including children of second wife in the writ petition.

5. The learned Single Judge, after having considered the issue and in order to find out ways and means to ensure that because of the dispute among family members and deceased Mathialagan, the partnership does not go adversely affecting the continuance of the license itself, disposed of the writ petition with following directions:

“... this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) Within 10 days of receiving the web copy of the order, respondents 2 and 3 may express their willingness to join the partnership firm by sending a written letter to the petitioner. If they are willing, then within 10 days of receiving their indication of willingness, the petitioner and respondents 2, 3, 5, and 6 shall enter into a reconstitution of the partnership agreement;

(ii) It is clear that the 51% share of Mathialagan will be equally distributed among these four individuals as of today, subject to the final outcome of the First Appeal.

(iii) Keeping those shares in mind, they shall enter into a reconstitution agreement, and in conjunction with the reconstitution agreement in the prescri