ORDER:  

The writ petition deserves to be dismissed for the following reasons.

2. It is clear from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and the respondent Nos.4 and 5 (private respondents) that the dispute brought to the Court is purely in the realm of a private dispute.

3. The petitioners and the respondent Nos.4 and 5 claim to be the legal heirs of their respective fathers who were partners of a firm running a petrol bunk/retail outlet. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the 25% shares in the partnership firm. It is undisputed that the fathers of respondent Nos.4 and 5, respectively own the 75% shares of the partnership firm.

4. As stated above, the dispute is between the petitioners and the private respondent Nos.4 and 5. The petitioners seek directions on the respondent Nos.2 and 3/Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (‘HPCL’) to stop supply petroleum products to the retail outlet on the ground that the dealership agreement has expired.

5. The very nature of the relief of the submissions made before the Court leaves little doubt that the petitioners are seeking to espouse a personal cause of action against the private respondents which have nothing to do with the