- (1.) AN application for vacation of interim order alongwith the application for dismissal of writ petition has been filed. Since the order was passed on certain incorrect facts, therefore, the matter is being considered by us. The copy of the said applications was given to the petitioners on 21. 9. 2007. No reply has been filed by the petitioner, despite sufficient time having been lapsed. The petition was entertained on the presumption that the petitioners are the owner of the land over which the outlet has been established and the petitioners are continuing as licensee since the year 2003, whereas the fact is that the land belongs to the petitioner No. 1, and the ad-hoc licence was given to M/s. Piswana Filling Station. M/s. Piswana Filling Station has not come to the Court for raising any grievance to the proposed new arrangement.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents, Sri Anurag Shukla submits that in fact the petitioners are neither the licensee nor they can claim dealership under the land owner category, and that two partners of M/s. Piswana Filling Station, namely, Smt. Ranjana Misra and Smt. Suman Awasthi have also filed a regular suit No. 446 of 2007 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sitapur raising the same grievance for not allowing the new arrangement proposed by the Company, for which, an application for temporary injunction was also filed. The temporary injunction application has been refused and an appeal against that order is pending the learned District Judge, Sitapur. The submission is that the aforesaid fact is sufficient to dismiss the writ petition, since the petitioners even otherwise cannot be allowed to pursue their remedy at two places simultaneously. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Kapil Dev is that the petitioner No. 2, Mahesh Chandra Mishra is also one of the partners of M/s Piswana Filling Station, and therefore, this petition is maintainable as he is not a party in the aforesaid suit, lacks merit. Mahesh Chandra Mishra may be a partner in Piswana Filling Station, but because of the fact that he is not a party in the civil suit, he would not be entitled to maintain the writ petition for the same relief, for which, the civil suit is pending. Apart from this, the petitioners have nowhere said that they represent the licensee, namely, M/s. Piswana Filling Station.
(3.) FOR the reasons stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the petition on behalf of the present petitioners is not at all maintainable. The writ petition is thus dismissed and the interim order stands discharged. .;