Tapen Sen, J. - (1.) THE Petitioners pray for an Order declaring Clause 1.5 of the Revised Policy Guidelines of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. dated 01.12.2008, to be null and void as, according to them, it is contrary to the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. THE Petitioners also pray for the issuance of a Writ of mandamus, commanding upon the Respondents/State Respondents to either renew the license or extend the validity of the Token under the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968. THEy have further prayed for the issuance of Writ of mandamus, commanding upon M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited to allow the reconstitution of the Petitioner No. 1 Firm in terms of the Partnership Deed dated 24.07.2009. Other consequential prayers have been made including of prayer that the Respondents should allow the Petitioners to continue with their Kerosene Dealership Agency, reconstruction of the Firm and an interim Order be passed restraining the State Respondents from refusing to extend the validity of the Token since issued in lieu of the Petitioners license under the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 till renewal.
(2.) THE facts of this case, as pleaded, are that the Petitioner No.1 (M/s. Roy and Company) is a partnership Firm which carries on business of Kerosene and the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 (Binoy Kumar Roy and his wife Nisha Roy) are Partners of the said Firm. It is stated that initially Smt. Siya Roy, was carrying on business under a Dealership Agreement with M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to the IOC) as proprietress of the said Dealership and had obtained necessary permissions including the Kerosene Agents License under the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 1968 Order). It is stated that Smt. Siya Roy, due to old age and sickness, was unable to carry on the day-to-day affairs of the business and therefore, she inducted her eldest son (Petitioner No. 2, Binoy Kumar Roy) as a partner in the said business. She made an Application before the IOC seeking approval for reconstitution of the Firm. Thereafter, on 27.9.2001, the Petitioner No. 2 along with his mother (Siya Roy) entered into an Agreement in the capacity as Partners of the Petitioner No. 1 Firm with IOC to carry on the said business in partnership and upon such reconstitution, a fresh Agency License under the 1968 Order was issued by the Licensing Authority in the name of the Firm and it was numbered as AGT/Ramp/2588 dated 28.4.2003. Thereafter, in April 2006, Siya Roy made an Affidavit declaring the names of her legal heirs. This Affidavit is Annexure-P/1 and from which it appears that Siya Roy had three sons being Binoy Kumar Roy (Petitioner No. 2); Sanjoy Kumar Roy and Ranjoy Kumar Roy. She also had two married daughters namely Sushila Roy (Respondent No. 6) and Chanda Roy. Since Siya Roy was unable to participate in the day-today affairs of the business and since the Petitioner No. 2 was unable to manage the business alone, both the Partners therefore decided to induct Smt. Nisha Roy (wife of the Petitioner No. 2) as a partner and prepared a Deed of Partnership and also applied for approval from the IOC. After IOC approved the same, these three executed a Partnership Deed between themselves on 24.7.2009 and thereafter, they also entered into an Agreement with IOC on 29.7.2009. The Partnership Deed dated 24.7.2009 and the Agreement with IOC dated 29.7.2009 are Annexures-P/2 and P/3 to the Writ Petition.
(3.) IT is the further case of the Petitioners that upon reconstitution of the Petitioner No. 1 Firm with the prior approval of the IOC, the Licencing authority issued fresh licence being AGT/Ramp/22 dated 14.9.2009 in the name of the Firm and recorded the names of all the three Partners making it valid till 31.12.2009. The said licence is Annexure-P/4. On 30th September 2009, Siya Roy died and an information to that effect was sent to the IOC by the surviving Partners(Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3) by their letter dated 6.10.2009 (Annexure-P/5).;