RAJ KUMAR JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has impugned the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.10.96 passed in CWJC No. 1979 of 1996(R) by reason of which the writ application filed by respondent No. 4 has been allowed.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass : Respondent No. 4 herein, being petitioner in the writ application, prayed before this Court that respondents 2 and 3 in particular, be directed to restore her name as one of the dealers in respect of the concerned Petrol Pump. Husband of the petitioner, as early as in the year, 1947, entered into an agreement with the erst while Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited (now M.S Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.) relating to setting up of an outlet for Petrol and diesel on hire over his lease hold premises. In the year, 1975, due to his ill health, the husband of the petitioner entered into a partnership agreement with Ram Kumar Jain, the present appellant. Pursuant to that partnership agreement the appellant, Raj Kumar Jain was directed by the concerned authority to meet them in relation to reconstruction of Pearl Motor Company. Husband of the petitioner died on 15.10.80 and by letter dated 6.11.80 one of the sons of the petitioner informed the Divisional Manager, respondent No. 3 about the death of his father and intimating therein that the heirs of the deceased sole dealer, D.N. Sen were desirous t continue with the business under the same arrangement whereby the heirs will be one of the partners and Raj Kumar Jain will be other partner. The appellant also, in the said letter, admitted himself to be one of the partners of the business of M/s Pearl Motor Company and desired to continue with the business on the same arrangement whereby he would be one of the partners and the heirs of D.N. Sen will be other partners. This letter is annexure 5 to the writ application. Thereafter, appellant, Raj Kumar Jain inducted his brother, Sanjay Kumar Jain in place of his (appellant's) mother who died on 26.8.88. Shares of the partners were distibuted, Raj Kumar Jain having 40% share, Sanjay Kumar Jain having 35% share and the writ petitioner having 25% share.

(3.) LEARNED Single Judge noticed that in spite of several opportunities given to Mr. Trivedi to file counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, no counter affidavit was filed. Mr. S.K. Dutta who appeared on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 by filing vakalatnama also did not file any counter affidavit. After hearing the parties, learned Single Judge disposed of the writ application by the following directions : Having considered the submission made by learned Counsel for the parties and considering that no counter affidavit has been filed inspite of adjournments of the case and also that the order with regard deletion of the name of the petitioner has not been annexed with the writ petition, the respondent Bharat Petroleum is directed to verify as whether the name of the petitioner has been deleted or not. If it is found that in fact the name of the petitioner has been deleted without giving opportunity of hearing to her, the respondent Bharat Petroleum and its authorities shall pass necessary order with regard to restoration of the name of the petitioner.