The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.11773 of 2010 Dated 9th June, 2010 Between: Kotha Sudheer …Petitioner And Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and 3 others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mrs.K.V.Rajasree for Mr. S.Satyam Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: Mr.Thoomu Srinivas, SC for HPCL Counsel for respondent No.2: Mr.O.Manoher Reddy. Counsel for respondent No.3: Mr.S.Surender Reddy Counsel for respondent No.4: ----- The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner, who is the son of one of the deceased partners of M/s.Kotha Vaikuntam & Company, viz., Kotha Vaikuntam filed the present Writ Petition to declare the purported inaction of respondent No.1, in considering his request for reconstitution of SKO dealership, as illegal and arbitrary. It is not in dispute that the said M/s.Kotha Vaikuntam & Company ceased to exist with the death of all its three partners viz., Kotha Vaikuntam, Kotha Eswaraiah and Kotha Shankaraiah. Following the death of the said partners of the firm, disputes arose between the petitioner and respondent No.2, who is the son of another partner late Kotha Eswaraiah. Both these persons are stated to have filed separate applications before respondent No.1 to permit reconstitution of the firm. The learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 has stated before the Court that the said applications are pending before respondent No.1. Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned Counsel representing respondent No.3, who is the daughter of one of the partners late Kotha Eswaraiah and sister of respondent No.2, submitted that if a notice is given to respondent No.3, she will make appropriate representation before respondent No. 1 disclosing her stand. Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent No.2, has taken objection to the petitioner claiming the interim order granted by this Court, stating that in view of the death of all the three partners and in the absence of reconstitution of the firm, the petitioner is not entitled to run the distributionship as he is not recognised as dealer. He also pointed out that the petitioner filed WP.No.29269 of 2009 for a Mandamus to declare proceedings, dated 19-12-2009, issued by respondent No.4 as illegal and that this Court by order, dated 20th April, 2010, dismissed the said Writ Petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that the said Writ Petition was dismissed. Be that as it may, the dispute between the petitioner on the one side and respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the other can be resolved by respondent No.1 taking a decision on their respective applications filed before it seeking permission to reconstitute partnership firm in terms of its regulations. I, therefore, find it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition with the direction to respondent No.1 to take a decision on the respective applications of the petitioner and respondent No.2 after giving notice to them and also to respondent No.3 and communicate the same to the parties within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the meantime, it is not obligatory on the part of respondent No.1 to make supplies of Kerosene to any of the parties to this Writ Petition as no proceedings have been issued so far recognising any of them as a dealer. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 20-05-2010, is vacated and WPMP.No.14879 of 2010 and WVMP.No.2141 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 9th June, 2010 lur