V. ESWARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same. The respondents No. 2 and 3 in Writ Petition no. 6411 of 2002 are the Respondents in writ Petition No. 15367 of 2002. The respondent No. l in Writ Petition No. 6411 of 2002 is M/s. IBP Company Limited. ( 2 ) THE petitioner filed Writ Petition no. 6411 of 2002 to declare the action of the m/s. IBP Company Limited in transferring the dealership of SKO/ldo to M/s. Satyanarayana Trading Company, Guntur in favour of his brother Sri Nalam umamaheswara Rao, (Respondent No. 3) as illegal. Writ Petition No. 15367 of 2002 is filed questioning the consequential granting of license by the Joint Collector in favour of his brother Sri Nalam Umamaheswara rao to carry on kerosene dealership of m/s IBP Company Limited as illegal and is in violation of principle of natural justice and to set aside the same. ( 3 ) THE father of the petitioner late sri Nalam Subba Rao, trading in the name and style of M/s. Satyanarayana trading Company, Guntur, was a proprietary concern. Late Sri Nalam Subba Rao died on 22-5-2001 leaving behind the petitioner, his brother Nalam Umamaheswara Rao and four daughters namely Chakka Ratnavali, addepalli Leelavathi, Voora Padmavathi and Tadavarthi Bharati. Consequent upon the death of late Sri Nalam Subba Rao his two sons and four daughters are eligible for consideration to succeed to the said dealership as legal heirs of the original licensee. Late Sri Nalam Subba Rao entered into agreement of SKO/ldo dealership on 24-10-1991 with M/s IBP Company limited and Clause 12 of the agreement is as follows:"12. The Dealer shall not sell, assign, mortgage or part with or otherwise transfer his interest in the dealership or the right, interest or benefit conferred on him by this agreement to any person, xxxxxxxx"clause 27 of the agreement is as follows:"27. The Dealer shall not sell, assign, mortgage or part with or otherwise transfer his interest in the dealership or the right, interest or benefit conferred on him by this agreement to any person, xxxxxxxx"clause 27 of the agreement is as follows:"27. For the purposes of these presents, the expression "the Company" shall unless, repugnant to the context or meaning thereof be deemed to include its successors and assigns, and the expressions "the Dealer" shall unless repugnant to the context or meaning thereof be deemed to include (1) where the Dealer is a single individual, his/ her heirs, executors, administrators and permitted assigns (2) where the Dealer is a firm, the specified partners thereof at the date of these presents, their respective heirs, executors and administrators, the partners for the time being of such firm, the survivors or survivor of such partners and the heirs, executors and administrators of the last surviving partner and (3) where the Dealer is a Company or other incorporated body its successors and permitted assigns. " ( 4 ) UNDER Clause 26 of the said agreement, the Courts in the city of Madras shall alone have jurisdiction to entertain any suit, application or other proceedings in respect of any claim or dispute arising under this agreement. There is no arbitration clause in the said agreement. As per the aforesaid Clause-27 of the agreement, where a dealer is a single individual, the dealer includes, his/her heirs, executors, administrators and permitted assignees. ( 5 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that the dealer is a single individual and therefore after his death all his heirs are entitled and eligible for consideration, for transfer of the dealership. It is further stated that the married daughters are not claiming dealership or putting forth their stake and the ultimate claimants that stood for consideration are the sons of late Sri nalam Subba Rao i. e. , the petitioner and the contesting respondent Sri Nalam umamaheswara Rao. M/s IBP Company limited instead of considering the claims of both the sons of late Sri Nalam Subba Rao, jointly or in the alternative instead of directing both the claimants to get appropriate orders from the competent Civil Court as to who is eligible for the dealership in question, considered the claim of the contesting respondent alone and transferred the dealership of M/s Satyanarayana Trading company, Guntur, to him. It is further stated that no order has been passed as such considering the rival contentions of both the parties, but on the other hand, the petitioner was kept in darkness and the request of his brother alone was considered in transferring the dealership, even without communicating any order to the petitioner. ( 6 ) THE Respondent No. 3 filed counter admitting that his father died on 22-5-2001 leaving behind the petitioner and himself as surviving legal heirs. His father late Nalam subba Rao got the dealership from M/s. IBP company Limited in the year 1962 as the sole proprietor of M/s. Satyanarayana trading Company and ever since he did the business as a sole proprietor of the company. In the year 1973 the petitioner partitioned/ separated from the union of the family by taking away his entire share in the ancestral and existing properties as on that date and executed the necessary entries in books of accounts and documents. The petitioner separated himself and after the partition, he is living separately without any relationship/connection with his family. The said M/s. Satyanarayana Trading company was made into a partnership company on l lth September, 1975 and this respondent is one of its partners. It is further stated that the petitioner filed OS. No. 347 of 1983 on the file of the Principal subordinate Judge, Guntur, claiming partition and separate possession in the properties of the suit schedule, which ended in a comprornise affirming that there are no claims against each other and accordingly the suit was dismissed in terms of the said compromise. It is further sated that after the death of his father, he made an application to the Respondent No. l for the transfer of the said dealership in his name as he is the only surviving legal heir of his father. The petitioner also sent a representation the respondent No. 1 company claiming himself as one of the legal heirs of his father. But, the company considered the documentary evidence adduced by the 3rd respondent and transferred the said dealership in his name. It is further stated that their father executed a will on 5-3-2001 and the said will is not forged-one and it was executed with his free will and consent. But, the company considered the documentary evidence adduced by the 3rd respondent and transferred the said dealership in his name. It is further stated that their father executed a will on 5-3-2001 and the said will is not forged-one and it was executed with his free will and consent. ( 7 ) M/s. IBP Company Limited filed counter stating that late Sri Nalam Subba rao was appointed as dealer of the respondent No. l company and he was the proprietor of M/s. Satyanarayana Trading company, Guntur, and he entered into agreement of kerosene dealership on 24-10-1991 with the Respondent No. l company. Late Nalam Subba Rao expired on 22-5-2001 leaving behind the petitioner and the Respondent No. 3 as the only surviving legal heirs. After the death of their father both of them approached for the transfer of the dealership and Nalam umamaheswara Rao filed Writ Petition no. 26261 of 2001, which was disposed of on 26-12-2001 directing M/s. IBP Company limited to consider the representation of Sri nalam Umamaheswara Rao and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. As per the directions, both the brothers appeared before M/s. IBP Company Limited on 18-2-2002 and on 19-2-2001 Respondent no. 3 submitted no objection certificate from his four sisters for transferring the dealership to him and also copy of the decree dismissing the suit OS No. 347 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur to manifest that no No objection Certificate is required to be obtained from the petitioner herein and orders have been passed transferring the dealership in favour of sri Nalam Umamaheswara Rao. It is further stated that there is no mala fide intention in transferring the dealership in the name of the Respondent No. 3. The petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence to consider his claim as against the claim of Respondent No. 3 and therefore, having considered the claim of Respondent no. 3, the dealership was transferred in his name. ( 8 ) AFTER the M/s. IBP Company limited transferred the dealership in the name of Respondent No. 3, the Joint collector, Guntur, who is the licensing authority granted licence No. 6 of 2002 in favour of Sri Nalam Umamaheswara Rao for carrying on kerosene dealership of M/s. IBP Company Limited. ( 9 ) QUESTIONING the order of the Joint collector, Guntur, the petitioner filed Writ petition No. 15367 of 2002. ( 9 ) QUESTIONING the order of the Joint collector, Guntur, the petitioner filed Writ petition No. 15367 of 2002. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as there is arbitration clause in the agreement. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is no arbitration clause in the agreement entered into by his father with M/s. IBP company Limited in the year 1991 and only suit is maintainable in the Court of madras. It is further stated by the Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the decisions of M/s. IBP Company Limited is not under any clause of the agreement, but it is decided outside the scope of the agreement and therefore, they have right to file a suit as the said decision is not within the purview of the agreement. He further submitted that there is no arbitration clause in the said agreement entered by the original dealer and the said arbitration clause was for the first time introduced in the dealership agreement entered in favour of Sri Nalam Umamaheswara Rao on 28-3-2002, under Clause-29. The petitioner is not a party to the dealership agreement entered into by Respondent No. 3 with M/s. IBP Company Limited and therefore the question of raising a dispute under the agreement entered into between m/s IBP Company Limited and Respondent no. 3 by the petitioner does not arise. ( 11 ) SRI V. Ravinder Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that when both the sons of late Sri Nalam Subba Rao claimed succession of the dealership, as per the policy and the clauses of the dealership agreement, the company having heard both the parties should have passed a reasoned order. But, without passing any order and without even communicating the reasons for rejection of the claim of the petitioner, transferred the dealership in favour of his brother and filed a caveat on the file of this court, stating that the dealership of M/s. Satyanarayana Trading Company, Guntur, has been transferred in favour of Respondent no. But, without passing any order and without even communicating the reasons for rejection of the claim of the petitioner, transferred the dealership in favour of his brother and filed a caveat on the file of this court, stating that the dealership of M/s. Satyanarayana Trading Company, Guntur, has been transferred in favour of Respondent no. 3 herein and even in the said caveat also the number of the proceedings and their date have not been furnished and except stating that Sri Nalam Umamaheswara Rao addressed a letter on 18-3-2002 accepting the letter of request to transfer the dealership of M/s. Satyanarayana Trading Company in his favour and there is a possibility of Sri nalam Pulla Rao approaching Hon ble Court and seek orders for vacating the transfer of dealership orders. ( 12 ) I have perused the relevant records and other documents furnished by both the parties. Admittedly late Sri Nalam Subba rao was a dealer in his single individual capacity. The said dealership is not transferable during his life time. Only on his death, his legal heirs, executors or administrators are entitled to succeed to the dealership. It is the case of both the parties that the married four daughters have not putforth any claim to transfer the dealership in their favour also along with their brothers. A claim has been putforth by both the brothers alone. It is stated that late Sri Nalam Subba Rao expired on 22-5-2001 and prior to his death he filed a letter on 5-3-2001 to transfer the dealership in favour of Respondent No. 3 and also executed a Will dated 5-3-2001 transferring the dealership in favour of Respondent No. 3. On the other hand it is the case of the petitioner that the so-called Will has not seen the light of the day till December 2001 and the said Will is a concocted and forged- one and was obtained for the purpose of transferring the dea ership and in any of the correspondence there is no mention about the execution of the Will and therefore, m/s. IBP Company Limited have not relied on the so-called Will. ( 13 ) I am not inclined to deal with any of the rival contentions of the merits of the case as to who is entitled to succeed to the dealership. ( 13 ) I am not inclined to deal with any of the rival contentions of the merits of the case as to who is entitled to succeed to the dealership. Whether both of them are entitled jointly to succeed or only one of them or all the legal heirs of late Sri Nalam subba Rao are entitled, but the fact remains that when a claim has been putforth by both the sons of the deceased dealers, having heard the rival contentions of both the parties, the Respondent No. l company, should have passed a reasoned order and communicated the same to both of them. The record discloses that no such order has been passed after hearing the contentions of both the parties on 18-2-2002. It is stated that as per the policy guidelines of the government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gases, issued on 15-1-1999 for reconsideration and renewal of SKO/ldo dealership in case of the death of the dealer (allottee), dealership can be reconstituted in favour of the legal heirs. If the legal heirs express their unwillingness to carry on the business, the dealership will be reconstituted with the remaining partners after obtaining the no objection certificate from the legal heirs and after considering any Will made by the original allottee. Clause-A (6) (c) reads as follows:"in case of death of allottee (dealer), dealership can be reconstituted in favour of legal heir (s ). If legal heir (s) expresses unwillingness to carry on business, the dealership will be reconstituted with the remaining partners after obtaining NOC from the legal heir (s) and after considering any will made by the deceased allottee. "clause-2 of the said policy reads as follows:"2. Even after empowering the oil companies to decide cases of resitement, reconstitution and revival as per above dispensation, there may still be some deserving cases not strictly covered by the guidelines. The deserving cases of resitement, reconstitution and revival which are not strictly covered under the above guidelines may be referred by the oil s companies to this Ministry for decision. " ( 14 ) IT is stated by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that here is a case where the dealership was granted to a single individual and all his legal heirs are entitled to succeed to the dealership. " ( 14 ) IT is stated by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that here is a case where the dealership was granted to a single individual and all his legal heirs are entitled to succeed to the dealership. It is not a partnership company and therefore, the question of reconstituting the same does not arise. It was a proprietary concern and if the proprietor dies all his legal heirs are entitled for reconstitution of the proprietary concern. The claim with regard to the proprietary concern is by both the sons of the deceased proprietor alone and therefore both of them would have been given the dealership jointly instead of in favour of one of the sons alone. It is further stated m/s. IBP Company Limited rightly ignored the so-called Will and it was brought into existence at a very belated stage. It is further stated that while reconstituting and reviving the dealership, if there is any dispute, which could not be settled as per the clauses and policy guidelines, M/s. EBP company Limited, should have referred the matter for the decision to the Ministry of petroleum and Natural Gases, Government of India. Neither they have referred the matter to the Ministry of Petroleum and natural Gases, Government of India, nor they have passed a reasoned order. A perusal of the file discloses that a letter under reference No. APV/15, dated 18-3-2002 has been addressed to M/s. Satyanarayana trading Company, IBP Agents, Guntur, with reference to a request letter of Sri Nalam umamaheswara Rao for the transfer of dealership of M/s. Satyanarayana Trading company, Guntur, consequent to the death of the original dealer Sri Nalam Subba Rao, informing him that his request to the transfer of dealership in his name has been considered by them. Pursuant to the said letter an indemnity bond was obtained by respondent No. 3 and the M/s. IBP Company limited filed a caveat in the High Court. ( 15 ) ADMITTEDLY, the said letter is without assigning any reasons and none of the contentions of the rival parties have been considered. Therefore all the parties have agreed that the matter may be remanded to M/s. IBP Company Limited for fresh disposal on merits on the rival contentions of both the parties. ( 15 ) ADMITTEDLY, the said letter is without assigning any reasons and none of the contentions of the rival parties have been considered. Therefore all the parties have agreed that the matter may be remanded to M/s. IBP Company Limited for fresh disposal on merits on the rival contentions of both the parties. ( 16 ) WITHOUT going into the merits and the rival contentions of all the parties, I am of the opinion that M/s. IBP Company limited has not passed any reasoned order transferring the dealership in favour of Respondent No. 3 and therefore their action is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. ( 17 ) ACCORDINGLY, the said letter dated 18-3-2002, transferring the dealership in favour of Respondent No. 3 Sri Nalam umamaheswara Rao, is set aside and all the consequential proceedings i. e. , entering into agreement of kerosene dealership is set aside. Consequently, the grant of licence by the joint Collector, Guntur for carrying on kerosene dealership by M/s. IBP Company limited also stands set aside. ( 18 ) ACCORDINGLY, both the writ petitions are allowed, directing M/s. IBP Company limited to give notice to both the parties and hear them personally and pass appropriate reasoned orders dealing with the rival contentions on merits within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Till then the existing arrangement, with regard to carrying on kerosene dealership by Sri Nalam umamaheswara Rao shall continue. No order as to the costs.