Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) THESE four intra -court appeals arising out of two orders dated 14.10.2011, as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in two writ petitions (CWP Nos. 8102/2007 and 7225/2011), involving intrinsically inter -connected facts and inter -related issues, have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal by this common judgment.
(2.) THE dispute herein essentially relates to a License for sale of petroleum products, as issued by the appellant of SAW Nos. 2133/2011 and 2179/2011, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ('BPCL') for its outlet location at Bandikui in the name of M/s. Kapoor Chand Jain. The contesting respondents of these appeals, Shri Uma Shankar Agarwal and Shri Vinod Kumar Agarwal, both sons of late Shri Matadeen Agarwal, preferred a writ petition (CWP No. 8102/2007) seeking directions against BPCL that their names be substituted in place of their late father in the Selling License in question; and supply of the products be continued to M/s. Kapoor Chand Jain, Petrol Pump, Bandikui while asserting that their father alone was carrying on business under the said License and while stating the grievance that after his demise, they sought substitution of their names and issuance of amended Selling License but BPCL was avoiding to do so. On the other hand, the appellants of SAW Nos. 1886/2011 and 1882/2011, Shri Rishi Jain and others, legal representatives of late Shri Santosh Kumar Jain and Smt. Kailaso Devi, while contesting the claim made by the above -referred respondents, preferred a separate writ petition (CWP No. 7225/2011) seeking declaration that the dealership agreement in question stood terminated and for further direction against BPCL to advertise the outlet afresh. These appellants also sought directions against BPCL to release the property over which the retail outlet was set up by the firm M/s. Kapoor Chand Jain. The learned Single Judge of this Court has considered and disposed of both the writ petitions by different impugned orders of even date i.e., 14.10.2011.
(3.) WHILE allowing the writ petition (CWP No. 8102/2007) filed by the contesting respondents, the learned Single Judge has issued directions to BPCL as follows: - - "Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the respondent BPCL consider the case of the petitioners for substitution of their names in the selling licence granted to firm M/s. Kapoor Chand Jain in accordance with the decisions of the Civil Courts, holding that Matadeen Agarwal was Proprietor of the Firm M/s. Kapoor Chand Jain. The case of the petitioners for substitution of their deceased father who was the de facto proprietor of M/s. Kapoor Chand Jain recognized by BPCL be declared within four weeks of receipt of a certified copy of this order. During the period of consideration of the case of the petitioners as per the extant instructions and guidelines for substitution of legal heirs on the demise of the existing licensee, the respondent BPCL is directed to continue making supplies of motor spirit and other assorted products in its line of business to the firm M/s. Kapoor Chand Jain as it has done in the past.";