S.K. Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed, for the following reliefs: (a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents No. 1 and 2 to restore the petroleum products to the filling station of the petitioner in the name of M/s Naseem Filling Station situated at Naibasti, Naugama Sadat, district Jyotiba Phule Nagar and continue to make the supply of the same. (aa) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents No. 1 and 2 to renew the licence No. UP-3812A of the petitioner by accepting the requisite licence fee and issue to the same to the petitioner. (b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents No. 1 and 2 to decide the representations of the petitioner and restore the supply of the petroleum products to his outlet."
(2.) DURING the pendency of the writ petition, by way of amendment, the petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondent No. 1 and 2 (in short 'Corporation') to renew the licence No. UP-3812A of the petitioner after accepting the requisite licence fee. The background facts in nutshell are as under: The licence dated 30-5-1978 was granted by the General Manager of the Corporation in favour of M/s Naseem Filling Station, Naibasti, Naugama Sadat, Moradabad (in short "Proprietorship firm") which was a proprietorship firm, of which the petitioner was the Proprietor. After the issuance of licence in favour of the proprietorship firm the Corporation started supplying the petroleum products to the licensee in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence. In the year 1980 without the approval of the Corporation the proprietorship firm was reorganized as a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s Ansar Filling Station, Naibasti, Naugama Sadat, after inducting respondent No. 3, Abdul Rashid, as one of the partners along with the petitioner. Thereafter, it appears that some dispute arose between the petitioner and Abdul Rashid, which led to the filing of a suit by Abdul Rashid, against the petitioner in the Civil Court and an interim injunction was granted against the petitioner in the said Suit No. 6 of 1982. The matter reached before this Court by way of F.A.F.O. No. 112 of 1982 against the interim injunction order and the appeal was allowed against Abdul Rashid. It appears that some interim injunction was also granted by the Civil Court by order dated 30-1-1984 against the Corporation which was challenged by Corporation before this Court in FAFO No. 164 of 1984. However the said appeal was dismissed as not pressed and subsequently the Suit No. 6 of 1982 was also dismissed in default.
(3.) THE petitioner by way of amendment has filed a document dated 24-10-1982 to show that the renewal of the storage licence No. 3812A was made on 24-10-1983 for a period of two years and has prayed, that the licence of the petitioner be renewed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the storage licence of petroleum product was renewed for a period of two years in 1983, the petitioner was fully entitled to get his licence renewed. It is further submitted that Corporation is illegally and arbitrarily not renewing the licence of the petitioner since for the last 24 years as such the direction be given to the Corporation to renew the licence of the petitioner for carrying on the business of retail outlet.;