LAKSHMI AGENCY Vs. DISTRICT SUPPLY AND CONSUMER OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RECONSTITUTION of Kerosene Dealership from partnership to proprietorship in the name of writ petitioner/ Lakshmi Agency is the point falling for consideration in these writ petitions and writ appeal.

(2.) LAKSHMI Agency, Tirunelveli is operative since 14.9.1966 and it was run by Ellappan as sole proprietor. Later, in the year 1992, it was converted as a partnership firm after inducting his son Kumaresa Srinivasan as a partner. On 22.3.1999, Ellappan executed a registered Will bequeathing all his movable and immovable properties including his business - Lakshmi Agency. On 16.10.2001, Ellappan relinquished his rights in the partnership firm and the said relinquishment was also intimated to the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL). On 28.1.2004, Ellappan passed away leaving his son Kumaresa Srinivasan and his three daughters as his legal heirs. After his demise, Kumaresa Srinivasan had given number of representations on 25.02.2004, 29.05.2004, 14.07.2006, 4.9.2006 and 9.11.2006 requesting IOCL to reconstitute the dealership into sole Proprietorship. Based on the Registered Will, District Supply Officer, Tirunelveli issued a Kerosene selling Licence in the year 2004. When the Kerosene selling Licence was due for renewal, IOCL issued a proceeding in R:202:SKO dated 17.11.2006 stating that reconstitution of dealership was under process. In the meantime, by the proceedings inR.5/86777/2006 dated 11.12.2006, District Supply and Consumer Protection Officer, Tirunelveli had refused to renew the licence on the ground that "unless the licence issued in favour of Partnership Firm is transferred in favour of individual there is no possibility of renewing wholesale licence No.22/TNV issued in favour of Partnership Firm". Challenging the said proceedings, Lakshmi Agency represented by Kumaresa Srinivasan filed W.P.(MD) No.11561 of 2006. By Order dated 27.1.2009, the said Writ Petition was dismissed holding "that the question of recognising the petitioner as a dealer would arise only if the partnership continues or when there is a reconstitution of partnership which need to be proved to the authorities concerned." The learned judge held that on the death of Ellappan, the firm came to an end and when the partnership was not subsisting there is no question of renewal of kerosene wholesale licence. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of W.P.(MD) No.11561 of 2006, the petitioner - Kumaresa Srinivasan has preferred Writ Appeal - W.A.(MD) No.89 of 2009.

(3.) W.P.(MD) Nos.3295 to 3297 of 2008 have been filed to declare (i) Clause 2.4.3 in the impugned Circular No.98-12/2005 No.R.O./6002 dated 29.12.2005 issued by the 2nd respondent - Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Oil Corporation Limited; (ii) Clause (C) of Clause 2-A-6 of the Circular in F.No. P- 19011/15/97-IOC dated 15.1.1999 issued by the 1st respondent - Government of India,represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi and (iii) Clause 2.4.3 in the impugned Clause 2.4.3 in the impugned Circular No.98(A) - 10/2006 No.R.O./6002 dated 9.10.2006 issued by the 2nd respondent - Chairman & Managing Director, Indian Oil Corporation Limited respectively as null and void.