IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 2568 of 2008 Date of Decision : February 20, 2008 M/s Singh Traders and others ....Petitioners Versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioners. M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 16.2.2008 (Annexure P.11) passed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited-respondent No.4. It is admitted position that no express permission or consent by petitioner No.1 was obtained from the Corporation, either for inducting petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 as partner or for leasing out of the sole proprietorship firm by the proprietor-Birender Singh, who was originally, the sole proprietor of the firm, namely, M/s Singh Traders- petitioner No.1. It is also conceded that in the terms and conditions of the agreement, the requirement of express permission is mandatory when the dealership was allotted to M/s Singh Traders, through its sole proprietor-Birender Singh. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, who are now Civil Writ Petition No. 2568 of 2008 -2- claiming to be the partners in the proprietorship firm M/s Singh Traders are persona non grata and they have no privity of contract with respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 i.e. Bharat Petroleum Corporation and its various officers. This is the principal reason given in the impugned order dated 16.2.2008 (Annexure P.11), for cancelling the dealership. After hearing learned counsel, we find that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have have no privity of contract with the Corporation and by virtue of the same reason petitioner No.1 would also have no relationship with the Corporation, as Birender Singh, the sole proprietor has walked out of the proprietorship firm long ago. The assignment of the firm petitioner No.1 is without any written permission from Corporation-respondent No.1 which is mandatory requirement of terms and conditions of dealership agreement. Even otherwise the dealership agreement dated 3.6.1985 in favour Birinder Singh, who was the sole proprietor of the firm petitioner No.1 has expired on 2.6.2000. He in fact has assigned everything to petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 without written permission of Corporation-respondent No.1. There is, thus, no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE ( T.P.S. MANN ) FEBRUARY 20, 2008 JUDGE satish Civil Writ Petition No. 2568 of 2008 -3-