JUDGMENT By Court: The petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondent no. 2 to sign the Form-II and/or DTO Licence Form and certify the appointment of the petitioner no. 1 as the dealer of the respondent no. 2 for the retail outlet at Katrasgarh and selling Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil including petrol and diesel thereat or to assign reason as to why Form-II DTO Licence is not signed. 2. The short fact is that the petitioner's firm is a retailer and dealer of the petroleum products including petrol and diesel since 1960-65, then under Burmah Shell Oil Storage. He had two outlets one at Katrasgarh in Dhanbad district and another at Nimiaghat in Giridih district in the State of Jharkhand. 3. The writ petition relates to the Katrasgarh outlet. 4. The respondents are the Government companies. They are authorized to enter into an agreement with the dealers holding the required licence for supply of the petroleum products such as petrol, diesel, high speed motor oil etc. The petitioner was granted licence by the State Government dealing in the aforesaid products under the provisions of Bihar Motor High Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil Licensing Order, (DOLO), 1966 to the State of Jharkhand itself made under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as aforementioned. After getting licence of retail outlet, the petitioner was required to enter into an agreement with Nationalized Oil Company as they are only licencee to supply the aforesaid products to the retail outlet. Accordingly, the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited, as then was. The petitioner's firm was partnership firm. Surendra Kumar Nathany (petitioner no. 2) and one Anoop Chand Pareek were two partners. Anoop Chand Pareek resigned sometime in 1970. The firm was, thereafter, reconstituted to the notice and knowledge of the Oil Company. The firm was accordingly running its retail outlet business. For that purpose renewal of licence is required under Clause-5 of the said Order of 1966. Under that provision, the dealer has to renew his licence every year by filing an application in Form-II of the said Order an annexing certificate of the Oil Company. The firm was accordingly running its retail outlet business. For that purpose renewal of licence is required under Clause-5 of the said Order of 1966. Under that provision, the dealer has to renew his licence every year by filing an application in Form-II of the said Order an annexing certificate of the Oil Company. According to the said statutory requirement, the petitioner used to get renewal of licence from year to year by filing an application in Form-II with the certificate of the Oil Company. 5. As usual the petitioner applied for renewal of his licence for the year 2008 by his application dated 10.12.2007 before the respondent no. 2, giving all the required particulars. He had clearly mentioned the name and description of the partners. The petitioner had applied in December itself under the provision of Clause-5 (III) of the said order 1966. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent did not issue the required certificate within time and neither assigned any reason for not giving the certificate. Due to the said arbitrary withholding of certificate, petitioner's licence for the year 2008 onwards could not be renewed and he has been put to suffer huge loss and injury. The petitioner ultimately filed this writ petition for the relief aforementioned. 7. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that withholding of certificate amounts to arbitrary denial of right to livelihood of the petitioner and the same is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The attitude of the respondents is wholly arbitrary, illegal and malicious. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent no. 2 has neither issued the required certificate on the application-Form-II nor assigned any reason for withholding the same till date. For the first time in the counter affidavit, it has been pointed out that the partner was changed violating the term of the agreement. Learned counsel submitted that it would evident from the documents, as admitted by the respondent, that the partnership was reconstituted after the death of the erstwhile partner Anoop Chand Pareek as far back in 1970 and an yearly information was given in the application in Form-II and the respondent no. 2 all along forwarded the application by giving certificate and accepting the new partner. There was never any objection by them and they had issued certificate till 2007. 2 all along forwarded the application by giving certificate and accepting the new partner. There was never any objection by them and they had issued certificate till 2007. Sudden denial on the aforesaid ground of inducting wife of the petitioner no. 2 as partner is whimsical, arbitrary and unjustified. 8. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no provision in the Order or in terms of the licence under which the said respondent can withhold/deny the certificate on the petitioner's application-Form-II. If according to the said respondent, there was violation of any term of the agreement, they were at liberty to exercise their option as stipulated in the said agreement, including termination of the agreement. But till date the agreement has not been rescinded nor violation of any term on the ground of induction of partner was ever objected to and complained before December, 2007. 9. Learned counsel submitted that the said respondent being the instrumentality of the State can not withhold the required certificate which amounts denial of livelihood to the petitioner. 10. The writ petition has been contested by the respondent nos. 2 to 4 i.e. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and their Officers. In their counter affidavit, it has been stated, inter-alia, that the retail outlet given to the petitioner were not running properly. Articles were sold less than its potentiality due to mismanagement of the outlet by the dealer. The petitioner no. 2 is living in Kolkatta and the Management is in the hands of employees. Sometime retailer was also found involved in malpractices. The first partner is said to have expired long back but his death was not confirmed by the petitioner no. 2 by producing death certificate. He has also not produced certificate of legal heirs of the said deceased partner. 11. The petitioners in their rejoinder, refuted and denied all the said allegations stating that the allegations are wild and made without giving the date and particulars of irregularity and malpractices. If there was any such allegation the same should have been informed to the petitioners in writing. Appropriate action as provided in law and in the terms of agreement should have taken at the time when the same were found. But no such notice was ever given nor any such allegation was made or any action was taken against the petitioner. Appropriate action as provided in law and in the terms of agreement should have taken at the time when the same were found. But no such notice was ever given nor any such allegation was made or any action was taken against the petitioner. The allegations have been levelled in the counter affidavit for the first time. The respondents allowed the petitioners to run their business by giving them certificate till 2007. They are now estopped from taking that plea as a ground for withholding the certificate for renewal of licence for 2008. 12. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 4 assisted by Sri Mrinal K. Roy, submitted that it is the fact that the agreement has not been terminated. But the company has rightly withheld the certificate required for the purposes of renewal of the licence as it was found that dealer is involved in malpractices. It has been submitted that the company earlier had given certificate in the hope that the petitioner will supply the required document and correct irregularity, but the same was not done. In view of the said irregularity, the respondents did not sign the certificate as prescribed in Form-II. It is further submitted that the company had no intention to terminate the agreement but allow the petitioner to run the business after correcting the irregularity, but despite giving proper opportunity to the petitioners, they have not done so. In that circumstance, the company had no way out than to avoid signing of certificate on Form-II. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the fats and materials on record. 14. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners have been running the said retail outlet business since 1965 on the basis of yearly renewal of their licence. For renewal of the yearly licence, certificate on Form-II is required to be signed by the said respondents. The respondents went on signing the said certificate till 2007, but certificate on Form-II application for 2008 has not been signed. The respondents have also not assigned any reason for not signing the certificate of the petitioners. For the first time, in their counter affidavit filed in this writ petition, it has been alleged that certificate was not signed as the petitioner was found indulged in malpractices and irregularities. 15. The respondents have also not assigned any reason for not signing the certificate of the petitioners. For the first time, in their counter affidavit filed in this writ petition, it has been alleged that certificate was not signed as the petitioner was found indulged in malpractices and irregularities. 15. From the record particularly from the copy of Form-II of the year 2003, Annexure-6 to the rejoinder of the petitioner, I find that the company had signed certificate even after change of the partner which was clearly mentioned in the body of the application i.e. From-II. 16. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel tried to impress upon this Court that the certificate has not been signed by the respondent as they failed to verify death certificate of erstwhile partner, who is said to have died in 1971. It has been submitted that according to the terms of the agreement, the petitioners had to produce death certificate as well as no objection certificate of the legal heirs of the first partner namely Anoop Chand Pareek, but in spite of the death of Anoop Chand Pareek long back in 1971, neither death certificate nor No Objection Certificate of his legal heirs has been produced. 17. Learned counsel, however, has not been able to explain as to what is difference in the circumstance of 2003 and 2008. The certificate (s) were signed after the change of the partner sine after 1971. It is an admitted fact that the partner who has been inducted, is the wife of the partner Surendra Kumar Nathani-petitioner no. 2. 18. In view of the said admitted position, I find that the ground which was for the first time taken in this counter affidavit is wholly frivolous and without substance. 19. The respondent-company for number of years went on signing certificate even after change of the partners. I, therefore, find no just reason for not signing the certificate on Form-II of 2008. 20. Admittedly, the said respondents have not terminated the agreement on ground of violation of terms of the agreement. If there was any violation of the terms of agreement, the respondent could have terminated the agreement by following the prescribed term and procedure. But so long the agreement is subsisting, there is no justification for not signing the certificate on the application-Form-II. If there was any violation of the terms of agreement, the respondent could have terminated the agreement by following the prescribed term and procedure. But so long the agreement is subsisting, there is no justification for not signing the certificate on the application-Form-II. The attitude of the respondents is arbitrary and tantamount to denial of petitioners valuable right of running business and is wholly illegal and unjust. 21. However, since the purposes of the certificate which was required for renewal of licence of 2008 is now frustrated after lapse of several years. Petitioner is now at liberty to file a fresh application in the statutory form for further period. If such application is filed, the respondents shall consider the same and do needful in accordance with law. 22. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.