Judgment : This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash the proceeding in Rc.B2/250/2011, dated 23-01-2012, of respondent No.4, whereby he has rejected the petitioner's application for renewal of its Form-B license to run the petroleum retail outlet. The petitioner is a partnership firm, of which one of the brothers of respondent No.5 viz., Dannapaneni Venu Gopala Murahari Rao is a partner. The father of the said Venu Gopala Murahari Rao and respondent No.5, during his lifetime, executed a lease deed in favour of petitioner-firm. Later the lessor has died leaving behind the said Venu Gopala Murahari Rao, respondent No.5 and 4 others as his legal heirs. It appears disputes arose between the legal heirs of the original lessor, as a result of which fresh lease deed was not executed by them in favour of the petitioner-firm. The petitioner has, however, applied, for renewal of its retail outlet license, to respondent No.4. Respondent No.5 has submitted a representation before respondent No.4 objecting to the renewal on the ground that he also has a legal right over the land in which the petitioner-firm is running the retail outlet. Purporting to rely upon Clause 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 (for short 'the Petroleum Products Order'), respondent No.4 has rejected the petitioner's application for renewal as it has failed to submit valid lease agreement over the land. Assailing this Order, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, respondent No.5 got himself impleaded in the Writ Petition. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed separate counter-affidavits. Sri P.Venugopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the provisions of the Petroleum Products Order do not envisage production of lease deed over the property on which the retail outlet is run, for renewal of license. Smt. Hemalatha, learned Counsel for respondent No.5, placed reliance on condition No.5 of Form-B license issued under the Petroleum Products Order, which envisages that the dealer shall run the business without contravening the provisions of the Petroleum Products Order and any other law relating to the petroleum products. Smt. Hemalatha, learned Counsel for respondent No.5, placed reliance on condition No.5 of Form-B license issued under the Petroleum Products Order, which envisages that the dealer shall run the business without contravening the provisions of the Petroleum Products Order and any other law relating to the petroleum products. She also relied upon sub-clause (iii) of Rule 152 (1) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 (for short 'the Rules'), under which every license granted under the Rules inter alia is liable to be suspended or cancelled by an order of the licensing authority for any contravention of the Act or of any rule thereunder or of any condition contained in such license, or by order of the Central Government, if it is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for doing so. She also brought to the notice of this Court sub-clause (i) of Rule 152 (1) of the Rules, which inter alia envisages that every license granted under the Rules shall stand cancelled, if the licensee ceases to have any right to the site for storing petroleum. It is not the pleaded case of respondent No.5 that any statutory provision prescribed production of lease deed by the existing licensee before the licensing authority as a condition for renewal of its license. On the contrary, in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4, he has candidly conceded that the Petroleum Products Order does not make for filing of a lease deed compulsory and does not make it obligatory for the licensee to produce a lease deed for renewal of license. He has, however, relied upon Clause 7 of the Petroleum Products Order to justify his action for refusal to renew the petitioner's license. As regards the submission of the learned Counsel for respondent No.5, Rule 152 of the Rules does not get attracted to the facts of the present case because it is not the case of respondent No.5 that one of the partners of the petitioner-firm has no right over the site. At best, respondent No.5 can claim an equal right over the land along with his brother, who is one of the partners of the petitioner-firm and other co-partners. It is one thing for respondent No.5 to claim right over the property. It is quite another thing for him to say that his brother has no right over the property. At best, respondent No.5 can claim an equal right over the land along with his brother, who is one of the partners of the petitioner-firm and other co-partners. It is one thing for respondent No.5 to claim right over the property. It is quite another thing for him to say that his brother has no right over the property. In law, a partnership firm is a compendium of partners, as it has no separate legal existence. As the brother of respondent No.5 viz., Venu Gopala Murahari Rao, who is a partner of the petitioner-firm, is, admittedly, one of the sons of the original lessor, his right to be in possession of the subject property cannot be disputed unless a competent Court of Law in a properly constituted proceedings declares that he has no right to continue over the said property. The right of respondent No.5 and other co-owners is inchoate as of now. In the absence of any legal provision stipulating production of a lease deed as a condition precedent for renewal of license, the action of respondent No.1 in declining to renew the license only on the objection raised by respondent No.5 is not sustainable in law. Respondent No.5 is entitled to work out his remedies in accordance with law by instituting appropriate proceedings in respect of the land in question. By preventing the petitioner from running the retail outlet, no benefit will accrue to respondent No.5. For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned proceeding in Rc.B2/250/2011, dated 23-01-2012, of respondent No.4, is set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the petitioner's application for renewal without insisting on production of the lease deed. The petitioner shall be permitted to run the retail outlet till disposal of its renewal application. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, interim order, dated 01-02-2012, is vacated and WPMP.No.2981 of 2012 and WVMP.No.1570 of 2012 are disposed of.