Advocates:
['M/S V P VALLIAPPAN', '', 'S M S SHRIRAM NARAYANAN', 'B VENKADESAN', 'M/S KING & PARTRIDGE']

W.P.No.8282 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.12.2021

Coram

The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy

W.P.No.8282 of 2017

and

W.M.P.No.9073 of 2017

Chithode Gas Agency,

rep. by its Managing Partner, P.Chitra,

...Petitioner

Vs.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

rep. by Regional Manager,

Petro Bhavan, No.82, T.T.K.Road,

Alwarpet, Chennai.

...Respondent

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to

give approval for reconstitution of the petitioner's ''Chithode Gas Agency''

as a Partnership Firm by considering the representation, dated 22.08.2016.

For Petitioner

: Mr.V.P.Valliappan

For Respondent

: Mr.M.Vijayan

for M/s.King and Patridge

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.8282 of 2017

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed, seeking for issuance of a Writ of

Mandamus, directing the respondent to give approval for reconstitution of

the petitioner's ''Chithode Gas Agency'' as a Partnership Firm by considering

her representation, dated 22.08.2016.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that, initially, a dealership

agreement was entered into between the petitioner's husband and the

respondent/Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., to run a Gas Agency

under the name and style '''Chithode Gas Agency'', which is a sole

Proprietary Concern. According to the petitioner, said Sole Proprietary

Concern was converted into a Partnership Firm on 18.06.2015. Therefore,

the petitioner made a representation to the respondent, dated 22.08.2016, to

grant approval for re-constitution of the sole proprietary concern, viz.,

''Chithode Gas Agency'' as Partnership Firm. Since no approval has been

granted so far, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, seeking appropriate

direction.

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.8282 of 2017

3. Though no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent,

the learned counsel for the respondent has brought to the notice of this

Court a dealership agreement, dated 02.12.2020, and submitted that,

initially, dealership agreement was entered into between the petitioner's

husband and the respondent on 19.02.2015, for a period of five years, i.e. till

16.12.2019. Thereafter, the same was renewed vide agreement, dated

02.12.2020 for a period from 17.12.2019 to 16.12.2024, in the name of the

petitioner's husband, Thirunavukkarasu, who is carrying on business under

the name and style of ''M/s. Chithode Gas Agency''. Therefore, he

contended that the petitioner has made a false claim, and hence, prayed for

dismissal of the Writ Petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the

learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on

record.

5. This Court has given due consideration to the submission of the

learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.8282 of 2017

6. Upon perusal of the document, it appears that the present Writ

Petition is filed in the year 2018. According to the contention of the

petitioner, the said Chithode Gas Agency was initially, a sole Proprietary

Concern, but, the same was converted into a Partnership Concern on

18.06.2015. But on perusal of the document produced by the learned

counsel for the respondent, it is seen that, said Chithode Gas Agency was

only an unregistered partnership Firm, and subsequently, when the period

for the original dealership was over on 16.12.2019, the respondent had

entered into a fresh dealership agreement with the petitioner's husband,

Mr.Thirunavukkarasu, who is carrying on business under the Firm's name

and style as ''M/s.Chithode Gas Agency'', as Sole Proprietary concern.

Therefore, if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is true

that her husb