- (1.) Heard counsel for the parties on the two interlocutory applications, one filed by the petitioners and another filed by the respondent No. 2. I.A. No. 1847 of 2010 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking permission to introduce certain amendments in the original writ application. A rejoinder to the interlocutory application has been filed by the respondents.
(2.) learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ application has been filed for the following relief(s). i. For issuance of a direction upon the respondents, in particular the respondent No. 2, to sign the Form-II / DTO Licence Form and certify the appointment of the petitioner No. 1 as the dealer of the respondent No. 2 for running the retail outlet at the place where it was established. ii. For restraining the respondents from unlawfully preventing the petitioner No. 1 from running the business of retail outlet of the respondent No. 2. iii. For quashing the inspection report dated 3.1.2008 issued under the signature of the respondent No. 3 whereby, the petitioner have been called upon to show-cause as to why action for terminating the retail outlet dealer of the respondent No. 2, should not be passed.
(3.) learned Counsel explains that this Court while admitting the writ application, had, vide its order dated 19.3.2009, passed an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the writ application. Yet, the respondent No. 3 by by his order dated 17.3.2010, has intimated to the petitioner that the dealership agreement which the petitioner had entered into with the respondents, has been terminated with immediate effect and the petitioner has also been asked to depute his representative to be present at the retail outlet site for the purpose of enabling the respondents to take away the articles from the site. Learned counsel submits further that considering the aforesaid subsequent development which had transpired during the pendency of this writ application, the petitioner needs to amend his writ application to include a further prayer for quashing the order as contained in the letter dated 17.3.2010 issued by the respondent No. 3 and to include a corresponding statement of facts, to paragraph-29 of the writ application, as mentioned in paragraph-5(b) of the interlocutory application.;