ORDER

The prayer sought for in this writ petition is for quashment of the impugned order of termination of the petitioner's Petroleum Retail Outlet dealership, dated 02.05.2022 in Ref.: SLMDO/R/3113 passed by the 1st respondent and for a consequential direction to the respondents to continue the supply of petroleum products to the petitioner's dealership, as per the dealership agreement dated 23.11.2017.

2. The short facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as follows :-

a) Initially, the petitioner Firm consists of two Partners viz., Gopalan and G. Ravi and their Firm is referred in the name and style of M/s.Sri Venkatesa Traders. Thereafter, a Dealership Agreement was entered into between the said Firm and the respondent/Indian Oil Corporation for the supply of petroleum products. While so, due to death of Gopalan, one Vatsala was inducted as Partner. Thereafter, in the year 2005, due to illhealth of Vatsala's Son, one Kannan was appointed as Manager in the said Firm, who in turn, misused the position and created forged documents as if he was inducted as Partner of Sri Venkateswara Traders. But the aforesaid cheating done by the Manager Kannan was unknown to the Real Partners. On coming to know, the Partners lodged a police complaint on 28.09.2006 before the Superintendent of Police, Salem. Further the Petitioner's Firm have also intimated the authorities concerned viz., respondent, Commercial Tax Officer, etc. that the said Kannan was never inducted as Partner and confirmed that Ravi and Vatsala were the partners of the said Firm. Suddenly, the 1st respondent issued a letter dated 17.09.2008, thereby the dealership agreement was suspended. Immediately, on 19.09.2008, the respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner stating that the petitioner Firm violated the terms and conditions stipulated in the Dealership Agreement. Challenging the suspension order, dated 17.09.2008, the Petitioner-Firm filed W.P. No.23219 of 2008 and obtained an order of stay of suspension, from this Court on 23.09.2008.

b) When things stood thus, in the year 2013, another Partner G.Ravi died and in his place one S.Chitra, who is the family friend of said Vatsala was inducted as other Partner. Immediately, proper representations were made to the respondent with regard to the reconstitution of Firm with a new Partner. However, the respondent rejected the representations of the petitioner Firm, vide their letter dated 15.11.2013, stating the pendency of W.P. No.23219 of 2008. Aggrieved over the said rejection letter, dated 15.11.2013, W.P. No.33695 of 2013 was filed by the petitioner. This Court vide its order dated 03.01.2017 allowed the said writ petition viz., W.P. No.33695 of 2013, thereby the rejection order of the respondent was set aside with a direction to consider the petitioner's application dated 29.04.2013 and further direction issued to accord necessary approval with regard to the aforesaid reconstitution. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 03.01.2017 in W.P. No.33695 of 2013, the 1st respondent approved the reconstitution of petitioner's Retail Outlet Dealership of M/s.Sri Venkatesa Traders on 04.11.2017 and necessary fees were paid. Thereafter, on 23.11.2017, new Dealership Agreement was also executed by the 1st respondent and thereby Vatsala and S.Chitra were continuing as Partners of the said Firm. At this juncture, the earlier W.P. No.23219 of 2008 filed by the petitioner was disposed of, on 01.08.2018 with a direction to the parties to avail the alternative remedy as per clause 61(a) of the Dealership agreement by initiating arbitration proceedings. In that scenario, the petitioner Firm submitted a representation to the respondent to drop the proceedings initiated against them, since the cause of action for proceeding based on the show cause notice dated 19.09.2008 was non- existent as well as the reconstitution of Firm was approved by the respondent on 23.11.2017.

c) On the other hand, the 1st respondent