IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 15671 of 2001 SUSHMA RANI Versus GENERAL MANAGER (RETAIL), BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS ----------- 7 22.08.2008 The petitioner had applied for dealership of petroleum products of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. When the petitioner was not selected, the petitioner moved this Court challenging her non- selection as well as selection of respondent No 7 in whose favour, Letter of Intent had been granted in the year 2001. In the writ petition itself, it is disclosed that the respondent Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited was not granting the dealership to the petitioner in view of what is commonly referred to as the relationship clause. The relationship clause contemplates that if any of the designated relations of the applicant already has a dealership of any of the petrol Companies then the applicant would be disqualified. The fact is that in the year 1985, petitioner’s husband had obtained a dealership of retail in petroleum products of Indian Oil Corporation Limited in his own individual name. Subsequently, he sought permission of Indian Oil Corporation Limited and inducted a partner and converted his individual dealership into a partnership firm. In 1993, in terms of the partnership deed, he retired from the said partnership thus leaving the said business to the newly inducted partner solely. He informed the Indian Oil Corporation Limited in this regard. It is a matter of record that before retiring from the said partnership firm which had the effect of transferring the original business of the 2 petitioner individually now to the new partner individually to the exclusion of the petitioner’s husband. Petitioner’s husband, as per the agreement with Indian Oil Corporation Limited and particularly Clause 47 thereof, was required to take previous consent before taking such an action. Even though authorized by the partnership deed, he did not seek any previous consent. He merely informed Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Till date, Indian Oil Corporation Limited had not granted consent. In my view, a partnership deed is an agreement as between the partners for the adventure in the nature of business to be carried out. It binds the partners inter se and brings about a jural relationship inter se. That cannot and does not override the agreement as between the petitioner’s husband and the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. That agreement binds the two and is distinct and independent of the partnership. Thus, merely because the partnership deed permitted petitioner to retire at will inter se the partners that may be acted upon but when it comes with regard to interaction with Indian Oil Corporation Limited, it is the agreement entered into between Indian Oil Corporation Limited and the partners that would operate which necessitated prior consent before withdrawal. No consent was sought nor any consent granted. Therefore, so far as Indian Oil Corporation Limited is concerned, petitioner’s husband continues to be a partner in the said dealership though as between the partners he stands retired. If this be the situation then in view of the relationship clause, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for the award of dealership. 3 There is yet another reason for not interfering. The Letter of Intent to respondent No 7 was granted in the year 2001 and pursuant thereto, a regular dealership was already set up and being run by the private respondent for last seven years. No order was sought from this Court at any stage to make the said arrangement as between Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and the said private respondent subject to the orders of the Court. It would be highly inequitous to upset this relationship after almost a decade. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in this writ application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)