THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No. 23106 OF 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been preferred by the dealer of LPG, supplied by M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited – 1st respondent herein, aggrieved by the show-cause notice dated 4.9.2010 issued to him by the 1st respondent – Oil Company requiring the writ petitioner to show-cause as to why appropriate action be not taken against him for the breaches committed with regard to the agreement entered into by and between him and the 1st respondent. I have heard Sri S.Satyanarayana Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent – Company. The learned Senior Counsel would point out that clearly in paragraph (7) of the show-cause notice, it is stated that an investigation into certain complaints received by the 1st respondent through 3rd parties have been got investigated by the competent authority and based upon the findings of such an investigation, it is alleged that the writ petitioner herein has entered into a partnership agreement on 14.3.1991 and also executed a partnership deed on 31.3.1993 with Sri Gadde Srihari Babu without obtaining prior permission of the corporation and that the Income Tax department vide their letter dated 25.2.2010 has confirmed the said documents. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that this enquiry conducted behind the back of the writ petitioner has formed the basis of the impugned order and that material has not been enclosed to the show- cause notice and that inspite of submitting a representation to make available a copy of the said partnership agreement dated 14.3.1991 and the Partnership deed dated 31.3.1993 and amendment partnership deed dated 1.4.2002 and the letter furnished by the Income Tax Department, the 1st respondent has not done so. As a result, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the writ petitioner has been successfully prevented from making an effective representation to meet the case of the 1st respondent corporation. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that thought the prayer in the writ petition is couched differently, but nonetheless, what the writ petitioner is essentially seeking is furnishing of the material asked for by him by the 1st respondent corporation. Principles of natural justice require and demand the 1st respondent not to condemn any of its dealers without providing them with an opportunity to put forth their defense as effectively as they can. Principles of natural justice require that the material which is sought to be relied upon for arriving at a provisional conclusion that the writ petitioner has breached the terms of agreement entered by and between him and the 1st respondent is the material that is gathered by the competent authority during the investigation undertaken by him. It is therefore only appropriate that a copy of the Partnership Agreement dated 14.3.1991 and the Partnership Deed dated 31.3.1993 and a copy of the letter dated 25.2.2010 issued by the Income Tax Department authenticating the aforesaid two documents should be furnished to the writ petitioner, all the more so when the writ petitioner has asserted in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition that an Advocate Commissioner appointed by a competent Civil Court on a previous occasion when contacted the Income Tax Department he was informed that there was no such document available with the Income Tax Department itself. When I suggested to the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent corporation that the interests of the corporation would not be put to any jeopardy by supplying this material to the writ petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel could see merit in the suggestion made by me. In this view of the matter, I do not consider it appropriate to confine the writ petition to be pending any further. Instead of admitting and keeping the writ petition pending, I consider it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent to furnish authenticated copy of the Partnership Agreement dated 14.3.1991 and the Partnership Deed dated 31.3.1993 and a copy of the letter dated 25.2.2010 issued by the Income Tax Department within a maximum period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and then provide him a minimum of 15 days to respond to the impugned show-cause notice dated 3.7.2009 and thereafter to consider the objections and pass appropriate orders on merits in accordance with law. With this the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J knk 17th September 2010 Note: CC IN (3) DAYS (b/o) knk